As any friend of mine or anyone who has spoken to me for more than five minutes at a party can attest, Kingdom of Heaven is my favorite film. The director’s cut, to be exact. I’ve watched it at least half a dozen times. So when I heard the Revue were screening it on beautiful 35 mm as part of their Don’t Be So Political series, I immediately got a ticket.
There are so many reasons to love this film. Ridley Scott spent the GDP of a small Pacific Island country to make a pointed swords and sandals allegory of the Iraq War. It was released in 2005, during the height of the Global War on Terror, when Hollywood was fully mobilized to act as a propaganda arm of the Pentagon. Despite being set in the Middle East during the Crusades, however, Scott refused to engage in the Clash of Civilizations narrative that permeated Western mass culture at that time. Instead, the Muslims are presented as rational political actors if not as unambiguous Good Guys.
Perhaps the best case of this is the film’s depiction of Saladin. Played magnificently by Ghassan Massoud, the movie’s Saladin is wise, prudent, and cosmopolitan. In contrast, the film’s antagonists, Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Raynald du Chatillon (Brendan Gleeson), are cruel, venal, contemptible villains. In fact, they are not so much historical figures as stand-ins for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, respectively. Csokas in particular is superb, chewing the scenery every time he is on screen.
Christendom’s moral salvation is the Leper King Baldwin IV, played by Edward Norton under the iconic silver mask. Norton famously insisted on remaining uncredited and unbilled in the lead-up to the theatrical release to preserve the character’s mystique. Baldwin acts as a counterweight to Saladin. Both Saladin and Baldwin are portrayed as shrewd rulers trying to maintain the peace even as internal dynamics in their respective polities drive them towards conflict. And ultimately, it is Baldwin’s death and the rise of the Crusader-neocons that sets the Kingdom of Jerusalem towards an irreversible path to catastrophic war.
Amidst all of this intrigue, Orlando Bloom turns in one of the most wooden performances of all time as Balian of Ibelin, our ostensible protagonist. Bloom’s delivery covers the spectrum from the dull to the baffling. Strangely, the film benefits slightly insofar as Bloom unintentionally acts as a sounding board, emphasizing how great this cast is. In addition to the aforementioned characters, we see Liam Neeson as Godfrey of Ibelin, David Thewlis as the Hospitaller, Jeremy Irons as Tiberias, Eva Green as Sibylla, and Alexander Siddig as Imad Al Din Al-Isfahani. Even the bit-part roles are impressive. Kevin McKidd plays an English Sergeant, Michael Sheen is a priest who happens to be Balian’s brother, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau is Godfrey’s nephew. Scott managed to draft a roster that rivalled the 90s Bulls in their star power.
The film itself has been accused of historical inaccuracies, and some criticisms are fair. As a historical epic, Kingdom of Heaven fails to treat historical societies as fundamentally alien the way all good historical dramas should (ex: HBO’s Rome). Rather, Scott infuses the characters with liberal sensibilities. Scott’s treatment of religion is the perfect example. Sibylla and Baldwin treat Christianity and its attendant institutions with an entirely ahistorical detachment that reflects a simplistic r/atheism worldview while Guy and Raynald are depicted as vulgar opportunists. At one point, Balian gives a pre-battle speech to the defenders in Jerusalem that can best be described as “all religions matter”, which would have ironically united the city insofar as every denomination would have been mortified by his heresy and killed him. Even the Patriarch of Jerusalem seems to lack any conviction in the Church as an institution, as in one scene where he advises the besieged Balian to “convert to Islam, repent later.” In one way, Scott’s projection of his secular liberal atheism back through time comes off as anachronistic, but it also makes the film somewhat interesting as a meditation on power and corruption.
Beyond the criticisms of historical veracity, there are also some valid accusations of Orientalism. Certainly, Scott makes some baffling choices. Ibelin is explicitly described in dialogue as a poor dusty land until Balian’s arrival and his introduction of well-digging to his peasant residents. It is hard to believe that the Levant, an agriculturally productive region for millenia, needed the intervention of a French engineer to discover irrigation, and yet here we are. In another scene, a gaggle of young women servants wait on Balian with towels as he bathes, which would surely prompt discussion by postcolonial studies grad students on tropes regarding the colonized woman and so forth. The film is not immune to these legitimate concerns. Edward Said certainly would not have been amused.
All that said, it is important to remember that this is not a movie about the Crusades. Or at least it is at face value, but Scott uses the Crusades as a vehicle to deliver a commentary on US imperial aggression in the Middle East. The film’s politics are best shown in a scene in the film where the Hospitaller, who is heavily implied to be an angel and acts as Scott’s moral avatar, meets Balian in the desert. Balian throws stones at a bush until it catches fire and says, “There’s your religion. One spark, a creosote bush. There’s your Moses. I did not hear it speak.” The Hospitaller tells Balian he is going to go pray, and when Balian asks for what, the Hospitaller responds, “For the strength to endure what is to come…The reckoning is to come for what was done one hundred years before. The Muslims will never forget.” And after a slight pause, he adds, “Nor should they.”
Of course, the film also shows the limits of Ridley Scott’s liberalism. The movie concludes with an epilogue that states that “nearly a thousand years later, peace in the Kingdom of Heaven still remains elusive.” Here, Scott reveals his typical liberal belief that the current conflicts in the Middle East are a direct legacy of the Crusades, and more broadly understood as “war due to religion” as opposed to very modern wars instigated by Zionist-imperialism. Sadly, that appears to be a leap too far for an otherwise excellent film.
In the 21 years since the release of Kingdom of Heaven, the movie has taken on a life of its own. Partly, it has lent itself well to funny meme formats, such as Baldwin Raising Hand or spoof reels of the iconic Saladin/Baldwin meeting in front of Kerak. More nefariously, however, it has been adopted by a subset of the far right as a cultural signifier in the current moment. Baldwin’s mask has become a popular profile picture among tradcaths. Moreover, as the US and Israel wage war on Iran and Lebanon and engage in genocide in Palestine, none other than the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has proudly shown off his tattoo of the phrase “Deus Veult” meaning God Wills It, the Crusader rallying cry incidentally shouted in this movie by Guy. Hegseth also revealed a quadrant cross tattoo of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is easy to mock these freaks for either not getting the film or not watching it at all but the efficacy of mockery requires shame, and these people have none. Much like Starship Troopers or Taxi Driver, for the chuds, the satire is overlooked in favor of crude edginess. That they hijacked this film’s superficial aesthetic should not detract from its contents.
Beyond the themes, the film’s production value is remarkable. Filming was done locally in Ouzarzette, Morocco, and parts of Spain. In the set pieces, more than 1000 extras were hired, and the realism really bleeds through the screen. The set and costume designs are truly magnificent. Credit goes to Harry Gregson-Williams for adding the cherry on top with a majestic soundtrack. Even the typical Oriental Lute Theme that signifies to the viewer we are in the Land of the Mahometan hit the mark. The theatrical cut was widely panned at the time, and I would agree with that assessment. However, the director’s cut has emerged as a work of sublime art that I must admit remains one of my favorite films.
Thanks Aamer, really enjoyed this.
Out of interest you describe the middle eastern situation as being drive by Zionist-imperialism, which I certainly won't argue with.
But do the rapacious interests of the oil industry, which predate the Israeli's influence in the region by decades deserve their own mention?
Cheers!