Ridley Scott criticized for new Crusades film

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-24 02:58am

This quote is priceless:

"It sounds absolute balls."

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 02:59am

I know, that's the main reason I posted it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 03:01am

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

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-24 03:03am

The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians.

Wow, portraying the Crusaders as the assholes they were and being critisized for it.....

These were the guys that waded into the Temple ankle (or was it knee) deep in human blood from the slaughter. Brutes pretty well covers it, especially in comparison to the relatively enlightened Muslim kingdoms of the times.

Mind you there is some nobility about what the Crusades, but overall it was a sorry chapter of history.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 03:05am

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

Because he's considered the leading authority in Britain on the Crusades?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 03:10am

Joe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I'd like to know why they consulted a professor of Christian "Ecclesiastical History" about the events of the Crusades.
Because he's considered the leading authority in Britain on the Crusades?

I question that authority if he objects to the portrayal of the Crusaders as "brutes". And "ecclesiastical history" is religious history; not the best starting point for impartiality on the crusades.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-24 03:23am

Oh, come on. Read the full quote and it's clear that what he's objecting to is the fact that The Talisman (the source material for the movie) portrayed all the Muslims as sophisticated and civilized, while portraying all the Crusaders badly. While the Christians were definitely the aggressors and deserve to be portrayed as such, sugar-coating the Muslims is just revisionist history.

Not to mention the other guy they got to comment on the film is a history lecturer, and also said that it was rubbish.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-24 03:38am

Yeah right, Joe. The next thing you're going to tell me is that The Patriot wasn't historically accurate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 03:44am

I guess the fact that shooting started just last week and that they're probably just guessing at the plot based on publicity statements doesn't factor into the accuracy of these historical analyses?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-24 03:47am

Joe wrote:Oh, come on. Read the full quote and it's clear that what he's objecting to is the fact that The Talisman (the source material for the movie) portrayed all the Muslims as sophisticated and civilized, while portraying all the Crusaders badly. While the Christians were definitely the aggressors and deserve to be portrayed as such, sugar-coating the Muslims is just revisionist history.

Joe, compared to the Crusader, the Muslims of the time were sophisticated and civilized. Hell, they were more sophsiticated and civilized than the Muslims of our time.

Joe wrote:Not to mention the other guy they got to comment on the film is a history lecturer, and also said that it was rubbish.

Yeah, a lot of it is shitty. But it's hardly a muslim fanatics propoganda peice.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-24 04:17am

EDIT

However, this plot is bullshit. That's all that I have a problem with. I don't like this "confraternity" crap, or portraying the Knights Templar as 'baddies' or Saladin as a 'goodie'. It's childish and patronizing. If I see the Knights Templar worshipping Baphomet, I will swear profusely.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-24 04:22am

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

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.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-24 04:26am

That's the quote I was looking for, but in Latin- that was actually said in a Crusade that took place in 13th century France- the Albigensian Crusade. anyway, what I typed in the last message was that, unless I'm wrong, the Muslim rulers allowed Christian pilgrims free access to 'the Holy Land'.

"Neca ecos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet"

I believe that's how it goes.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-01-24 04:35am

The Crusaders on the whole weren't much better or worse than the Muslims as far as brutality goes during the many decades of conflict in the Holy Lands- I guess you could argue that their very presence as invaders makes them "worse" but that's a very broad way of looking at things. It certainly shouldn't reflect badly on groups like the Templar (who, it may be added, became quite a bit more interested in the scholarly, peaceful nature of their vocation before their destruction.) Both Islamic and Christain factions in the Middle East during the period could be very nasty, but there were also periods of relative peace and *gasp* even cooperation! Portraying the Crusaders as grim, gritty, cruel warriors may be somewhat accurate, and certainly a less idealized view of them is fine, but that's all negated when you turn the Muslims into paragons of enlightenment and virtue. That's not accurate, it's not right, and it's just as bad as portraying the Europeans as holy warriors washing away the stains of the "infidels."

The Templar really have had it rough as far as PR goes, then and now. Give them a break!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-24 05:07am

The golden mean isn't necessarily right.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-24 05:27am

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

As a response to what Joe, Vympel and Uther said - I should also add that Medieval Arabic civilization was much more enlightened than contemporary European civilization.

BTW - why did nobody complain about The Thirteenth Warrior presenting Medieval Arabs as enlightened people and Medieval Europe as barbaric and backwards?

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-01-24 05:43am

Arabs weren't villains in Gladiator...

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-01-24 05:45am

Peregrin Toker wrote:BTW - why did nobody complain about The Thirteenth Warrior presenting Medieval Arabs as enlightened people and Medieval Europe as barbaric and backwards?

Because it's not a very good movie, and didn't even make it's budget back, to boot. I'm sure more people would complain if they cared to watch it.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-24 05:54am

If I remember, Age of Empires 2 portrayed the Arabs in the Crusades in a positive light. Did anybody complain about that?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-24 06:30am

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

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.

Well Mike, the Arabs of the day were not about to slaughter there own civvies as a general rule.
You might also ask yourself why it was that the Arabs were invading France until Charles Martell clobbered them. You might also ask why the Moors were wont to raid Italy for slaves..
I think you will find that everyone can be just as nasty as everyone else, granted that the Arabs were better educated than the average European.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-24 12:04pm

That sort of plotline, in which the Crusaders are all baddies and the Muslims are all heroes, is pure rubbish. Some Crusaders were barbaric and some were not. King Baldwin III, upon capturing Ascalon, did not massacre the city but kept to previous agreements and allowed the Muslims to go free, much like Saladin would do when he captured Jerusalem some time later. None of them were angels but stuff like "Look at the evil, brutish Christians and the good, pleasantly-mannered Muslims" is infuriating; Muslims routinely embarked on massive campaigns of aggression and slaughter just as often as their Christian counterparts; how do you think they came into possession of the Holy Land in the first place?

The entire era was awash with blood and nasty people, but both sides had virtous men (Baldwin III, Raymond III), and both sides had brutal, intolerant assholes (Raynold de Chattilion, the Mameluk Empire)

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-24 12:06pm

Of course, I am not trying to excuse any of Crusades, in the Holy Land and without, in any way.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-24 12:22pm

I like the idea of Christians and Muslims going at it on the big screen. This is gonna be cool. The more blood the better!

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-24 12:31pm

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

Rev Prez