Jonathan points the way to the trailer for the new Ridley Scott movie, Kingdom of Heaven and makes some predictions:
{...}In the past, Scott has been fairly unflinching in his depiction of certain enemies of Western civilization (see Black Hawk Down and G.I. Jane). It will be very, very interesting to see how the Kingdom of Heaven handles the crusades and how the CAIR-style backlash is manufactured leading up to the film's release (expect Time and Newsweek cover stories in April). Also of interest will be the European reaction to the movie. What happens to European anti-Americanism when Europe is cast in the role of America?{...}
(If, like myself, you're overwhemed in this acronym laden world, CAIR is the Council on American Islamic Relations.)
Interesting, but I think Ridley will indeed get off Scot free. I predict he will be laughing all the way to the bank. Unlike Oliver Stone, who laid the blame for Alexander's recent failure at the feet of uninterested American Bush-votin' fundamentalist homophobes, Scott doesn't go into a movie blatantly pushing an agenda. He goes into it to tell a story. There may be controversial aspects to that story, but Scott handles them deftly as they come along: they're simply a part of the story to him, not the story in itself. Stone also goes into filmmaking to tell a story, but he carries with him an agenda. He prefers to perform morality plays, wherein his message is the morality preached. Scott doesn't do that. I don't doubt that Scott does have an agenda to promote regarding Western Civilization, but he doesn't slam you over the head with it. He gives his audience credit for having a brain and allows them to come to conclusions themselves. If anything, he's the braver of the two, because he's not afraid of the audience. If the audience fails to laud Stone we're all stupid, as the above links show. The difference between the two men and their styles of storytelling is obvious.
For instance, Gladiator, if it had been made by Oliver Stone instead of Ridley Scott, would have been all about the evils of slavery. Stone, I'm fairly certain, would hammer this point home, with every character conundrum and plot point revolving around it. Scott's version, however, was about a general being sold into slavery by his enemies, and having the character to not only survive the perils of forced servitude, but to rise above it and to vanquish his foes. Was slavery any less evil in Scott's film, even though he didn't flog the dead horse of slavery every chance he got?
Any publicity this film gets along the lines of Jonathan's predictions will only be invalidated when the movie is released, and (I predict confidently) is critically acclaimed. It'll be a big non-starter. Alexander's failure to reap any critical acclaim and box office gives me hope in for this film. As for the Europeans, well... If they thought Alexander was good, do we really need to be consulting them for their opinion about films and their relevance to the ongoing debate of how best to combat Islamofascism?
Related side note: could someone tell me what the fascination with Orlando Bloom is? Bleh. I'm just not getting this one. He does absolutely nothing for me. He looks like an eager puppy, rather than a brave man. If this movie fails it will be because of him, I'm pretty certain, and not because of the message.
Posted by Kathy at February 23, 2005 03:28 PMIt's the Elf lovers from TLOR series you have to thank for Orlado's popularity. Personally, I'll take Aragorn, (Viggo Mortenson). We may not agree politically on any subject, but he's pretty good to look at.
Brilliant, concise analysis, love. Am I married to a brilliant woman, or what?
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at February 24, 2005 08:44 AMI'm fascinated as to where the perception originates that "Europeans" (to the populous of which of several dozen nations were you referring?) thought that Alexander was good! Jonathan's comment on "anti-Americanism" is particularly off the mark: anybody with any knowledge of the Crusades is aware of the atrocious actions of European Christians during that era.
Certainly, in the UK and Ireland Alexander was universally slated (see the BBC review for example). The suggestion that it wasn't seems to originate from the studio and distributors who were seeking to make up for for lost revenue. While its takings were adequate when compared to its poor performance across the Atlantic, this was largely due to a successful PR machine. Nevertheless, my interest in ancient history peaked my curiosity, though I must also admit that I went in with the view that "it couldn't be as bad as the reviews make out". Like others who made the same mistake, I left the cinema with a sense of disbelief as to how such a poorly-executed film could ever have seen the light of day.
I think its difficult to compare Scott and Stone. Gladiator is a fantastic film due to its strong narrative and excellent cinematography. However, it must be noted that it is grossly inaccurate from a historical point of view, and any treatment of a serious theme such as slavery seems to be purely coincidental.
As for criticism prior to the release of Kingdom of Heaven, it may not necessarily be politically motivated. It is likely that some will be concerned that such global blockbusters can present a biased or simplified view of history that millions will accept as being the "truth". This is a legitmate concern, and represents the larger issue of Western society's frequent desire to over-simplify past events.
Personally, I'm greatly looking forward to seeing Scott's take on the Crusades. Regardless of whether or not he chooses to promote a given agenda, his story-telling skills are always superb. I believe it is possible to enjoy it, while still maintaining a healthy scepticism on the veracity of the viewpoint presented.
Posted by: DaveM at February 24, 2005 11:57 AMGreat points, Dave. Just to address a few things:
to the populous of which of several dozen nations were you referring?
I was using Oliver Stone's definition of Europeans. A bit shortsighted of me, perhaps, but if he's going to lump everyone across the pond into one big mass of Alexander supporters, it seemed fair to do the same. It's not that big of a leap of the imagination: if you only relied upon what the European press had to say about it, it would be quite easy to beleve that everyone in Europe hates American, ergo everyone loved Alexander given its box office. I do realize that not everyone in Europe loved Alexander.
Studio spin, while not entirely irrelevant, nonetheless is the least of contributors here. When Gore Vidal gets up on his podium and declares that the reason the movie was getting such poor reviews because it presented a homosexual (not a bi-sexual, as was common during those times)Alexander the Great, no one can spin themselves out of that hole, nor do they have a need to, there being no such thing as bad publicity. I'm assuming you're from the UK, but the way this played out in the media here was that it was yet another blue state v. red state battle, along the lines of Fahrenheit 9/11 v. The Passion. Stone tried to capitalize on that, yet no one here bought it because the film had been panned by the critics. Ultimately, it was a non-starter, which is what I hope for Scott's film.
Given this, though, I would have to disagree with you and say that Jonathan's got a point about the anti-Americanism business. Given President Bush's remarks in the days after 9/11 about the crusades and Al-Qaeda's intent to cast the battle against Islamofascism in those terms, well, I can see where it would happen. My original point was not that the pre-publicity would not happen, but rather that it would fail. I fully expect to see what he predicted in that department.
I believe it is possible to enjoy it, while still maintaining a healthy scepticism on the veracity of the viewpoint presented.
As do I. I have no doubts that there will be oversimplifications in Kingdom of Heaven. There always are whenever such a film is made. Whether you can chalk the oversimplifications up to time constraints, etc. or to agenda-pushing and deliberate exclusion is another matter entirely. I believe Scott is more likely to fall into the former group, rather than the latter. I'll be interested to see if I'm correct in this assertion when the film comes out.
Posted by: Kathy at February 24, 2005 12:36 PM
I really liked him on Lord of the Rings, and Pirate's of the Caribbean. He's a little on the young side for an old lady like me, but he is cute in a puppy dog sort of way. I can understand why the younger set is all deep sighs over him. Though I do find it amusing that he's playing another blacksmith!
Posted by: Ith at February 24, 2005 05:17 PM