The Epic Film, Part 2

So. I seem to be on a thematic (or at least geographic) roll here. I had just written my blog about David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia when I realized that there was another, much more recent, epic dealing with the Middle East that could be written about.

And so, voila…

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Ridley Scott isn’t necessarily the most subtle of filmmakers (though he seems a master of understatement when compared to his brother, director Tony Scott).

And though he is vaunted by some viewers for his acute visual and stylistic sense, I am not of a mind to proclaim each of his films a success – or even an interesting failure. Legend (1985), his fantasy film starring Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, Billy Barty, and Tim Curry, was a woefully miscast, disjointed snoozefest that remains confusing even after Scott was allowed to recut the film years later. 1492, his chronicle of Columbus, was dreadful, and the less said about G.I. Jane, Hannibal, and A Good Year, the better.

Even his most recent offering, American Gangster, while bolstered by strong performances from Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, was rather disappointing.

Yet the man does possess a strong visual sense: his films almost always look marvelous, even when they fail in other areas. And for all of his failures, Scott has produced a few genuinely good films. Alien remains a classic of the sci-fi and suspense genres, and is infinitely better than its successive sequels. Blade Runner, while a bit cold and distant in its story, has nevertheless had an enormous influence on many of the science fiction films that have followed it (in terms of set design and the film's vision of the future as a grim metropolitan world). And Matchstick Men, one his most modest films, manages to be genuinely entertaining and, a rarity for Scott films, quite lighthearted.

Kingdom of Heaven is one of Scott’s more ambitious ventures, but it was not a box office success when it opened in 2005. Scott was reportedly asked to trim the film’s running time, likely an effort by the studios to eek out a few more showings each day. Fortunately, Scott was allowed to release his original cut on DVD, and this version is a drastic improvement.

Set in 1184, the film centers on a French blacksmith named Balian (Orlando Bloom) who finds himself claimed as a son by the crusading knight Godfrey de Ibelin (Liam Neeson). Balian soon travels to Jerusalem and is caught up in the Crusades.

Like many Scott films, Kingdom of Heaven looks marvelous, the production design and cinematography creating a richly believable world. The action is clearly delineated and the script, while not brilliant, is solid enough.

The cast is also generally excellent, though some big names (chiefly Neeson) aren’t given nearly enough screen time. If there is a weak link here, it is Bloom. I must profess that I have never felt any strong interest in Bloom as an actor outside of The Lord of the Rings. His performances in such varied films as Elizabethtown, Troy, and The Pirates of the Caribbean series have been distinctly underwhelming.

His performance here is probably the strongest he’s given outside of The Lord of the Rings, and he certainly doesn’t embarrass the film. And yet his is the weak point of the picture in performance terms. It can safely be said that he is no Russell Crowe.

Crowe, a brilliant and naturally powerful actor, practically carried Scott’s earlier epic, Gladiator, on his back. Kingdom is, in many ways, a better film than Gladiator – in terms of its production design, cinematography, performances, and general ambition. The complexities that this film attempts to deal with – the conflict between Christianity and Islam – are certainly relevant to the current world, and worth exploring. And yet Gladiator possessed Crowe – a formidable advantage. Bloom, despite his best efforts, simply can’t hold the screen with even a tenth as much power and charisma. Because of this, it is occasionally difficult to invest in Balian. This isn’t entirely Bloom’s fault. The script, though strong in creating a sense of time and place, can’t quite seem to get a bead on its central character.

Finally, we have the issue of the film’s treatment of the religious conflict so central to the story. Is the film historically accurate? Of course not. Sure, some of the broad strokes are true, but a great many smaller details are added, altered, or fudged. I’m not entirely certain that this is a bad thing, however, as the film’s goal isn’t strict historical accuracy but the exploration of the toll that the conflict takes on its characters.

There have undoubtedly been debates about whether the film is fair in its treatment of Islam or Christianity, whether it favors one side or the other, and whether it accurately reflects the faiths involved. Scott does his best to be impartial, allowing his Muslim characters depth, compassion and intelligence and endowing a number of Christians with similar virtues.

But frankly, he seems to have tried to sidestep the issue by establishing the character of Guy de Lusignan, a character so evil that he practically has the words ‘Bad Guy’ tattooed on his forehead. Nominally a Christian, it is made fairly clear in the film that he isn’t a real believer, thus making it easier for the filmmakers to avoid laying blame at the doorstep of any religion (it would seem to me, in historical terms, that both sides bore a wee bit of the blame).

I should stop at this point and make mention of the fact that I like this film. It may not sound like it, judging by some of what I’ve said. Despite my caveats, and all of the film's flaws, it does manage to be genuinely exciting, and it earns points for even attempting to suggest the idea that nobody wins in a conflict between religions. Hardly a novel idea, certainly, but a very valid one – and one that seems too often ignored.