It's History Jim, but not as We know it!

[Mr T.]

As if the real events of the Crusades weren't chock-full of interest and intrigue enough, this tw*t has to go and play fast-n-loose with the facts! Another case of 'History According to Hollywood'.



Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'
By Charlotte Edwardes
(Filed: 18/01/2004)


Sir Ridley Scott, the Oscar-nominated director, was savaged by senior British academics last night over his forthcoming film which they say "distorts" the history of the Crusades to portray Arabs in a favourable light.

The £75 million film, which stars Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson, is described by the makers as being "historically accurate" and designed to be "a fascinating history lesson".

Academics, however - including Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, Britain's leading authority on the Crusades - attacked the plot of Kingdom of Heaven, describing it as "rubbish", "ridiculous", "complete fiction" and "dangerous to Arab relations".

The film, which began shooting last week in Spain, is set in the time of King Baldwin IV (1161-1185), leading up to the Battle of Hattin in 1187 when Saladin conquered Jerusalem for the Muslims.

The script depicts Baldwin's brother-in-law, Guy de Lusignan, who succeeds him as King of Jerusalem, as "the arch-villain". A further group, "the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and Christians", is introduced, promoting an image of cross-faith kinship.

"They were working together," the film's spokesman said. "It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them."

The Knights Templar, the warrior monks, are portrayed as "the baddies" while Saladin, the Muslim leader, is a "a hero of the piece", Sir Ridley's spokesman said. "At the end of our picture, our heroes defend the Muslims, which was historically correct."

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."

Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."

Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".

He said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective, and 'baddies' is the wrong way to show it anyway. They are the biggest threat to the Muslims and many end up being killed because their sworn vocation is to defend the Holy Land."

Dr Philips said that by venerating Saladin, who was largely ignored by Arab history until he was reinvented by romantic historians in the 19th century, Sir Ridley was following both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad, the former Syrian dictator. Both leaders commissioned huge portraits and statues of Saladin, who was actually a Kurd, to bolster Arab Muslim pride.

Prof Riley-Smith added that Sir Ridley's efforts were misguided and pandered to Islamic fundamentalism. "It's Osama bin Laden's version of history. It will fuel the Islamic fundamentalists."

Amin Maalouf, the French historian and author of The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, said: "It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."

Sir Ridley's spokesman said that the film portrays the Arabs in a positive light. "It's trying to be fair and we hope that the Muslim world sees the rectification of history."

The production team is using Loarre Castle in northern Spain and have built a replica of Jerusalem in Ouarzazate, in the Moroccan desert. Sir Ridley, 65, who was knighted in July last year, grew up in South Shields and rose to fame as director of Alien, starring Sigourney Weaver.

He followed with classics such as Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, which won him an Oscar nomination in 1992, and in 2002 Black Hawk Down, told the story of the US military's disastrous raid on Mogadishu. In 2001 his film Gladiator won five Oscars, but Sir Ridley lost out to Steven Soderbergh for Best Director.

[Helen F H]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Bren Tierney @ Jan. 18 2004,16:43)]grew up in South Shields

<font color='#000080'>Just shows what happens when you live the wrong side of the Tyne dunt it....

[AdmiralHanson]

<font color='#000080'>Having said that 'Titanic' wasn't exactly accurate either, was it ?

Couldn't even get the ship sinking right .....

[louigi]

<font color='#FF0000'>And do you remember the enigma film Scuse me but I thought the Brits had somthing to do with that. &nbsp;I'm definately anti septic.

[AdmiralHanson]

<font color='#000080'>You mean U-571 Louigi ..... Supposed to be about nicking an Enigma coding machine from a U Boat, the sort of coding machine that was already in Allied hands for at least 18 months before the film was supposed to have been set.

[louigi]

<font color='#FF0000'>That sounds like it. But you know full well that the only people in world war 2 were the Yanks and a lot of freindly fire.
Thats right no Germans, no Italians, no English, No bugger else exept the F'in Yanks.

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Piss-poor Telegraph hack calls up academic and does precis of movie that hasn't even been shot and hasn't therefore been edited and writes shitty story on the back of it.

Why should anyone be interested?

Edit: When it finally - if it does - &nbsp;come to the attention of the movie watching public then it might be mildly interesting if Edwardes has her story straight - which has been rare in the past.

Until then - watch this space.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ Jan. 19 2004,00:36)]Piss-poor Telegraph hack calls up academic and does precis of movie that hasn't even been shot and hasn't therefore been edited and writes shitty story on the back of it.

Why should anyone be interested?

Edit: When it finally - if it does -  come to the attention of the movie watching public then it might be mildly interesting if Edwardes has her story straight - which has been rare in the past.

Until then - watch this space.

LoL Gav,

You slay me sometimes. I rather think the main thrust of the piece was to comment on how Sir Ridley's press machine talk bollocks and just how easy the Hollywood machine sugar-coats - and reduces to the saccharine and insipid 'love story' format - events which can easily stand up on their own. Surprised you missed that.

[Gavin Yates]

<font color='#000F22'>Bren - there is no movie at the moment.

This is a flyer and nothing more. FFS read the title of her piece ...

[Moray]

I dunno...the only faux pas committed here is to have Orlando Bloom star again in something....for the rest, the film itself (as described), the reactions of the critics and the jounaliste all fit in with the spirit of the times IMHO.