A Few Words About A few words about... Kingdom of Heaven - The Director's Cut (1 Viewer)

[JediFonger]

we're not supposed to get into religious+political discussions =).

re: perfect knight. you're right, but i think it is inconsistent. on one hand, he refuses to marry syb because that means his morality would be compromised. baldwin would kill guy and balian+syb. on the other hand he sleeps w/her knowing she's already married? hmmm... inconsistent hero. that, to me, deflates the remainder of his story.

re: extra-marital. doesn't make it right.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I do believe degrees of rightness were involved. Sleeping with another man's wife is not the same as tacitly allowing his death while you get what you want. Balian is hardly perfect...but he is virtuous, and he wants to do right because he wants to earn heaven for his wife. That is what drives him.

It's not about being perfect...it's about doing the right thing for others.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I think you're oversimplifying his motivations, by a lot. You're trying to put a black hat or a white hat on the character and declare him good or bad, when he's imperfect but trying to be good.

As to the religious and political aspects of the film, I think we can discuss them without getting into the real world, if you want to try. I certainly wouldn't mind. I had heard that the film was received poorly in the United States because of its portrayal of religion, and I'm flummoxed as to why, having seen the film. I just don't get what's "offensive" or out of whack about it.

Ultimately, the message I took from the film on religion was that religion itself is a good thing, while frequently men will try to bend religion to serve their own selfish desires and justify their actions. I cannot see this as anything but a positive and universal message -- that the ills of the world that are blamed on "religion" are merely the flaws of men.

 

[Ray H]

I know some people who were offended simply because (I don't know how spoilerish it is because it's history, but...)

the Christians lost.

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Yi-Feng,

The whole point of the movie is that Balian choses between what other people tell him is moral and what he believes is moral. Thus, sleeping with an unhappy married woman is not the same as murdering her husband.

And fighting God's fight is not the same as occupying Jerusalem.

Oddly, I don't think most American's were ready to hear -- in May 2005 -- that it is better to cut your losses and abandon a stupid fight, even if that means humbly accepting you made a mistake in being there.

"If this is the kingdom of heaven... let God do with it as he wills."

I don't think most Americans can do that -- acknowledge that it's the object of their dreams and not try to possess it. Which makes this a truly useful film, because rather than give viewers an idealogy that is easy to accept, the movie challenges people to reconsider their point of view and consider the idea of the film -- if your idealogy is getting you in trouble, maybe it's time to change.

That doesn't just mean the war in Iraq or religious zealotry. It could mean global warming. Americans have their heads buried in the sand and their ability to self-analyse is rusty. When you lose something like that, a good story can take you on the same journey and help you remember.

That makes Balian's humbleness as discovers this at the end of the film is a journey that American audiences could really use right now.

 

[Curt_B]

the film felt as if I were immersed in, living in history, and not simply watching a movie.
but then Scott has done that in many of his films: Duelists, Alien. Blade Runner and now this. For some reason, though I never resonated with 1492 or Gladiator...

 

[willyTass]

Tim

I too noticed the tray dimples had scratched my discs ( no playback problems though). I've seen the directors cut 3 times now- I think it's great now and with 10 years of more cellaring will be even better.

Major stuff-up by fox

 

[JediFonger]

how can balian be "virtuous" when he refuses murder but finds it OK to be adulterous. that's what i find incredulous and destroys my image of balian as a "valiant' knight.

aaron, re: religious issues. but see, that's precisely my point. the film doesn't take a stand... which neuters the point of the film in the first place. to quote a nonsequitor, "sitting on the fence hurts.".

 

[Chuck Mayer]

But you get the best view on the fence. You can see both sides. That's the point entirely.

Adulterous did not mean what it means today in the Crusades. Killing a fellow knight is higher on the scale. While you may see them the same, they did not, and acted accordingly.

And the film most certainly takes a stand. It just does it on a different, more salient topic. It is not Christians vs. Muslims, but life vs. death. Conscience vs. expectation, right vs. wrong.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Spoilers throughout --

I didn't see any fence sitting at all -- what did you want from it, either Christians good - Muslims bad or Muslims good - Christians bad? Neither is representative of reality. It had a very clear point of view -- it is man that makes good and bad out of religion, religion is not inherently good or bad -- and it expressed it.

Your other argument, while using another word, goes back to the same issue -- you want Balian to be either perfectly good or perfectly evil, to wear the white hat or the black hat. He was imperfect but trying to be good.

At the same time, falling in love with a woman in a loveless arranged marriage who didn't allow her husband into her own home is a far cry from having a man murdered for your own greater glory.

Balian is troubled. He tries to make the right decisions and does not always do so. He makes a number of bad decisions throughout the film (don't forget, he kills his brother in the opening scenes, and then stands by while the men who've been sent to arrest him for that murder are killed). The one you're picking at is probably the least bad of all the bad things he does.

 

[JediFonger]

relativism rules the day. ah well, in the end, outside of these confounding issues that none of you have yet to properly argue through logic, the film in of itself lacked that extra oomph to push it into a classic like Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

How can you argue a moral quandry of a troubled character through logic? It's not black or white -- grey abounds. My parents have issues with films that do not have a clearly defined separation between good and evil characters. I have never been able to understand why they are that way, but they are. I prefer to see people who are more real, heroes who make mistakes and villains who are sympathetic. I identify more with them than I do with Johnny Allgood, action star.

I wouldn't compare Kingdom of Heaven to Lawrence of Arabia, except maybe in scope. I'd have to revisit it after 20 years to make that kind of comparison, to see how it stood up. But damn, I thought it was a great piece of entertainment.

 

[JediFonger]

i shall use just one source and argue no more because it can get quite fugly:


i could go on copying... but me arms are tired. i think those that know what i'm talking gets the point. but if you don't. sorry, to continue would violate the TOS. let's nip it in the bud (i always confuse it with nip it in the butt) and stop here.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

What does that text have to do with anything?

I am not denying that Balian did something in the film that could be seen as 'immoral' -- I am wondering why a character in a film cannot do something immoral without all enjoyment of the film being destroyed for you. I am also pointing out that you are stuck on the adultery when he did many other bad things in the film.

Clearly, you want your protagonists to be without flaws and that is what has made the film hard for you to enjoy. Myself, I do not have that problem and much prefer a film in which the central characters are human beings rather than one-dimensional action figure cutouts.

Using arguments and sources to debate whether an action of a character was moral or immoral is silly. Clearly in the film Balian knows he has done things that are wrong. "Proving" that they are wrong doesn't get anyone anywhere, does it?

 

[JediFonger]

the text points out what a lot that many people in this thread are using moral relativism as the argument for Balian to sleep with someone else's wife but is still "virtuous" when refusing to murder guy (a la David's story+Bethsheba).

you're putting words (or text) into my mouth. the film is hard to enjoy because character traits such as what i described are inconceivably unrealistic (if you want realistic) and inconsistent in of themselves. but even if you subtract that factor out, it's still unenjoyable as simple entertainment because the substance, what little there is, is paper-thin and not ocean deep. i thought i didn't have to spell all of this out. guess i do.

 

[cafink]

It's unrealistic for an adulterer not to be a murderer?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

He wasn't virtuous, and never claimed to be. He was TRYING to be virtuous, he was trying to do the right thing. It's not moral relativism to say that adultery and murder are not equal. That's the equivalent of saying that speeding and hit and reun are equal vehicular crimes. They are not.

Why does Balian's indiscretion with Sybilla strike such a chord? Were his actions unbelievable? They were eminently believable to me, which is why the film worked.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

That someone is capable of doing both good and bad is unrealistic? I don't know, I see that as profoundly realistic. I don't know of anyone who is either entirely morally pure or entirely morally corrupt.

Do you find it inconceivably unrealistic that he would kill his own brother but not wish that someone else be killed for his own advancement?

I think you're measuring the film by your own moral yardstick and because you disagree with an action of a character, you cannot enjoy the film. Is it not possible to enjoy a film in which the protagonist makes errors? In which his judgement is not always perfect?

 

[Bryan Beckman]

From my own dim recollection of the movie, I recall that Balian refused to have Guy killed because of the possible ramifications for Jerusalem. "It is to be a kingdom of conscience . . . or nothing."

IIRC, Balian never thought much of himself. Yes, he was lured to Jerusalem with the promise of absolution for his wife's death (and, possibly, his own sins), but when he saw the evils committed in the name of God by zealots like Reynald and the Templars, he decided to depart from his expected course and find absolution in his own way. In today's language, he became a nondenominational Christian. However, the end of the movie leaves the question of absolution up in the air, as he departs with another lost/"damned" soul (Sibylla) in search of a private peace. I was reminded of the final shot of Dances With Wolves in that closing scene, even though the parallels aren't exact.

I don't think Balian wanted to be a "perfect knight" for himself. It was a title that was thrust upon him, and he sought to honor what that title meant insofar as his obligation to "defend the helpless" at Jerusalem and its environs.

The adultery was wrong, but that was Balian acting as Balian the lovelorn and wandering soul, not as Balian the knight. He knew when to separate his private affairs from his duties as a protector of the people. When the opportunity arose for him to sacrifice the integrity of the Kingdom of Heaven to satisfy his personal desires, he did the right thing. Shades of the biblical David, post-Bathsheba.

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Actually, while that's true as well, his initial reaction goes like this:

"What about Guy?"

"He will be executed, along with all his knights who do not swear your allegiance."

Balian considers.

"I cannot be the cause of all that."

When challenged on the point, Balian responds by quoting the King's words back at him: "A king may move a man... but the soul belongs to the man."

Then he is cornered in private by the city commissioner (Jeremy Irons) who challenges him again -- mentioning Sybilla -- at which point Balian says, "It will be a kingdom of conscience... or nothing!"

Balian is making an interesting distinction between being a good person and doing good things. As a person he regards himself as a fallen man, capable of evil and guilty of major sins. As he searches for salvation, he finds that knowing what is right is easy -- doing right is hard. He never chooses the path of least resistance, always challenging himself and others around him to do the "good" thing. This becomes a personal philosophy that is very Christian in nature, but which -- in the movie's central irony -- alienates him from the other Christians.

At no point in the movie does Balian display any regret or shame for his affair with Sybilla. Even to Guy's face. Clearly he does not think it is wrong -- relatively or absolutely. A loveless, forced political marriage is not a holy one. The concept of marriage has been subverted for political gain by a man who wants to possess her name. Is that the same as marriage for love?

When she was 14 years old, an older man stole her name, chastity and her freedom to find her own happiness. This is not a holy thing or anything deserving respect.

Balian could care less -- that's not relative. That's absolute.

One last thing... I'm not sure who started the comparisons with Lawrence of Arabia (perhaps I did, since it's my favorite movie?), but it really isn't fair. Honestly, to compare any movie to Lawrence is unfair.

I'm going to practice relativism and compare it to Troy, King Arthur (2004), Alexander, Gladiator and The Lord of the Rings. It's always more fair to compare a movie to drivel first, then work your way up to mediocre movies, and finish off with something pretty good. If it even approached Lawrence you know it's a damned good picture.