NationStates Jolt Archive

Kingdom of Heaven.

Quite a controversial film in todays day and age. Yet I believe that a film about the crusades was not only needed but inevitable in todays political climate. The real question is, will this film help to mend differences between Christians and Mulims? or will it just be more fuel for the fire?

Discussion about historical accuracy from any crusader buffs out there will also be appreciated.

(ps. I just saw the film, so I apologize if this topic was already discussed to death on the release date)

Hmm, a bit uncertain about the effects that it had - it possessed a nice balance between the "good knight" and the "Western barbarian" ideas, and the same for the Muslims.

Historically, it was reasonably accurate from what I can remember off the top of my head, weaponry and armour was appropriate.

For those interested, the Leper King of Jerusalem was Baldwin IV.

Err... Was another one of these really necessary?

Err... Was another one of these really necessary?

No, my mistake, stupid browser or keyboard! Dont know what happened.

No, my mistake, stupid browser or keyboard! Dont know what happened.

Ah. I was wondering why the topic question looked identical :p.

Sorry about the nitpicking, but I had to say it...

"fan the flames" and "more feul on the fire" mean the same thing. ;)

That they do.

I would like to put in a vote for the film having no affect on relations between Muslims and Christians.

Just to put things together:

The movie is set in the time when the crusaders had established a fragile peace in the holy land, before Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem. It shows very clearly that the crusaders were no heros, that at that time they were for the most part the scum of Europe trying to get to Jerusalem to get rich by plundering Arab cities. They are represented as being brutal and merciless, uncivilised and barbaric.
The religious aspects of the crusades from trhe background, there is but two priest in the movie and one of them dies within the first few minutes. The story itself is more about politics, principles and ideas, all of them a bit to enlightened and American to seem authentic.

The historical accuracy of the story of a blacksmith in France who can't only read and write in Latin, but also knows how to handle geomantic instruments makes his way to Jerusalem, more or less single-handedly trying to defend the city and impressing kings on both sides (not to speak about the princess) with his political strategies, is a tiny bit far fetched.

It's a movie. I don't think it will end starving (la faim dans le monde, mais je sais pas comment le dire en anglais) and the war in the world.

It's a movie. I don't think it will end starving (la faim dans le monde, mais je sais pas comment le dire en anglais) and the war in the world.
C'est correct (mais 'famine' est un mot plus precis)

I have yet to see this film. It's outcome would depend on how the point of views of both the Muslims and the Christians are presented and how much modern day influence has on those views. If they are genuine then one may need only know the basics in order to understand the feelings present in the film. I certainly hope that it isn't biased or make it into a simple action film. In my opinion in order for it to be balanced it must be historically accurate.

I have seen the movie a little long winded. It was nice to see a movie try and be unbiased about history.But it does hit home that war is for profit.... I guess things have not changed much over the centuries......