Muslimaah
21-05-05, 21:34
Kingdom of Heaven: "It’s Nothing … and Everything"*
By Rahma Bavelaar**
May 19, 2005
Ridley Scott, the producer of Kingdom of Heaven
Critics of Kingdom of Heaven have repeatedly found fault with the film for its historical inaccuracies; from the futuristic architecture of the cinematic Jerusalem, the appearance of characters that were long-dead by the mid 13th century, to a Muslim communal prayer that could only have been choreographed by someone who has never entered a mosque. All rather irritating faults in their own way, but then again, one who comes out of viewing a modern Hollywood epic with no more than a list of anachronisms has missed an important point—that any modern, cultural conception of the past, unsurprisingly, says more about the author’s views of the present than the period under discussion. To analyse these views and the way the subject has been manipulated to serve them is, therefore, a more interesting pursuit than seeking unrealisable historical accuracy. In a good work of art, any attempt to crack the author’s code would lead to multiple interpretations, but Sir Ridley Scott makes things easy for us.
First of all, 13th century Jerusalem is not the most subtle context in which to elaborate one’s views of modern inter-faith and inter-civilizational relations. In this sense, Scott’s general imagery and vocabulary fit seamlessly into the popular discourse about Islam and the West; a discourse that seems incapable of moving beyond cultural essentialism and conflict. Although Scott’s portrayal of Muslims is relatively mild, the fact that the only setting in which a popular parable on Muslim-Western relations can be “imagined” is one of open warfare says enough.
Apart from showing that—surprise, surprise—both sides have their “goodies” and “baddies,” the dominant storytelling perspective being on the Crusader side, the battlefield being the primary court of action, and the director’s too-obvious intention to appease Muslim sensitivities does not provide space for an honest exploration of what social, political, and religious factors motivated the two sides, nor does it allow a closer take on the individual psychology of some of the primary actors of the time. Thus, as an exercise in rapprochement, the film does little more than emphasise the obvious (good and evil can be found across the board) within the same clichéd frame of reference that the Islam and the West debate seems unable to move beyond, and without the cultural and psychological insight which is a prerequisite for true mutual understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To give your view on Kingdom of Heaven join our Discussion Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if Kingdom is not a credible interpretation of either the historical or current crisis of understanding between East and West, what is the message that Scott is trying to convey to us? A cursory consideration of the movie’s characters, their statements, choices, and actions leave little to the imagination. Far from a mere statement against religious extremism of any conviction—as the director has repeatedly described his film—the movie’s plot and lead persona (young blacksmith turned crusader Balian) illustrate not the inevitable failure of a ruthless, fanatical, and gruesome foreign occupation, but rather the glorious victory of the individual conscience over the tyranny of parochial authority.
Man is the active agent of his own destiny, the heart and mind are the ultimate benchmark of morality and justice, and history is authored by the courageous and nonconforming individual rather than those who happen to wield power, much less Divine Provenance. Balian embodies the perfect Enlightenment product. Man is both the means and the end of Scott’s Crusades.
To illustrate this point, all the clerical characters are disproportionately evil, hypocritical (“convert to Islam now, and repent later!”), incapable of rational thought and bloodthirsty, whereas the characters displaying kindness, wisdom, and mercy invariably take a much more individualist and relativist approach to their faith (“A kingdom of conscience, peace instead of war, love instead of hate: that is what lies at the end of Crusade.”) and seem to have more faith in human efficacy than divine predestination (“There you are not what you are born but what you have it in yourself to be.”), if faith comes into it at all (“I put no stock in religion”).
The widescreen Saladin’s defining characteristic is intelligent and at times merciful diplomacy, rather the deeply pious commander we know from Islamic sources. The most profound statement allotted to him in Kingdom when asked what Jerusalem means to him is the bombastic and pseudo-philosophical “nothing … and everything.” Unfortunately, Scott’s alternative for grand narratives is formulated with neither eloquence nor depth: “The world will decide. The world always decides.”
On a superficial level, Kingdom has certainly progressed a long way from the stereotypical and obstinate Hollywood images of Arabs we have grown so wary of. It is lamentable enough that it took so long in the first place, however, it must be understood that a few smiling Arabs do not by definition make a movie an insightful statement on Muslim culture, just as a negative portrayal of Crusaders do not necessarily indicate a truly self-critical understanding of one’s own history—Kingdom is neither.
Although I do not question Scott’s good intentions, a film that chooses a religious war as a platform from which to preach a secular and libertarian world view does not contribute to increased mutual understanding and does little to promote tolerance, as true tolerance requires the acceptance the “other” as he is, not as we would like him to be. The victor in Scott’s Crusades are neither moderate Muslims nor Christians, but the deeply secular, man-centred and anti-esoteric world view, so pervasive and overbearing in the modern Western world, a victor that bears no resemblance to either the deeply pious medieval Christian masses or the average conservative modern Arab Muslim. In principle, even the gospel of humanism, in spite of missing the mark in a medieval setting, could have been conveyed with subtlety and self-criticism. However, the script’s bluntness allows for only one perspective, and that’s not enough when dealing with such complex subject matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This article resulted from a conversation between the author and Art & Culture editor Dalia Yusuf.
** Rahma Bavelaar is a staff writer and editor of the IslamOnline.net Art &Culture page. She holds an MA in African Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, UK. You can reach her at [email protected].
By Rahma Bavelaar**
May 19, 2005
Ridley Scott, the producer of Kingdom of Heaven
Critics of Kingdom of Heaven have repeatedly found fault with the film for its historical inaccuracies; from the futuristic architecture of the cinematic Jerusalem, the appearance of characters that were long-dead by the mid 13th century, to a Muslim communal prayer that could only have been choreographed by someone who has never entered a mosque. All rather irritating faults in their own way, but then again, one who comes out of viewing a modern Hollywood epic with no more than a list of anachronisms has missed an important point—that any modern, cultural conception of the past, unsurprisingly, says more about the author’s views of the present than the period under discussion. To analyse these views and the way the subject has been manipulated to serve them is, therefore, a more interesting pursuit than seeking unrealisable historical accuracy. In a good work of art, any attempt to crack the author’s code would lead to multiple interpretations, but Sir Ridley Scott makes things easy for us.
First of all, 13th century Jerusalem is not the most subtle context in which to elaborate one’s views of modern inter-faith and inter-civilizational relations. In this sense, Scott’s general imagery and vocabulary fit seamlessly into the popular discourse about Islam and the West; a discourse that seems incapable of moving beyond cultural essentialism and conflict. Although Scott’s portrayal of Muslims is relatively mild, the fact that the only setting in which a popular parable on Muslim-Western relations can be “imagined” is one of open warfare says enough.
Apart from showing that—surprise, surprise—both sides have their “goodies” and “baddies,” the dominant storytelling perspective being on the Crusader side, the battlefield being the primary court of action, and the director’s too-obvious intention to appease Muslim sensitivities does not provide space for an honest exploration of what social, political, and religious factors motivated the two sides, nor does it allow a closer take on the individual psychology of some of the primary actors of the time. Thus, as an exercise in rapprochement, the film does little more than emphasise the obvious (good and evil can be found across the board) within the same clichéd frame of reference that the Islam and the West debate seems unable to move beyond, and without the cultural and psychological insight which is a prerequisite for true mutual understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To give your view on Kingdom of Heaven join our Discussion Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if Kingdom is not a credible interpretation of either the historical or current crisis of understanding between East and West, what is the message that Scott is trying to convey to us? A cursory consideration of the movie’s characters, their statements, choices, and actions leave little to the imagination. Far from a mere statement against religious extremism of any conviction—as the director has repeatedly described his film—the movie’s plot and lead persona (young blacksmith turned crusader Balian) illustrate not the inevitable failure of a ruthless, fanatical, and gruesome foreign occupation, but rather the glorious victory of the individual conscience over the tyranny of parochial authority.
Man is the active agent of his own destiny, the heart and mind are the ultimate benchmark of morality and justice, and history is authored by the courageous and nonconforming individual rather than those who happen to wield power, much less Divine Provenance. Balian embodies the perfect Enlightenment product. Man is both the means and the end of Scott’s Crusades.
To illustrate this point, all the clerical characters are disproportionately evil, hypocritical (“convert to Islam now, and repent later!”), incapable of rational thought and bloodthirsty, whereas the characters displaying kindness, wisdom, and mercy invariably take a much more individualist and relativist approach to their faith (“A kingdom of conscience, peace instead of war, love instead of hate: that is what lies at the end of Crusade.”) and seem to have more faith in human efficacy than divine predestination (“There you are not what you are born but what you have it in yourself to be.”), if faith comes into it at all (“I put no stock in religion”).
The widescreen Saladin’s defining characteristic is intelligent and at times merciful diplomacy, rather the deeply pious commander we know from Islamic sources. The most profound statement allotted to him in Kingdom when asked what Jerusalem means to him is the bombastic and pseudo-philosophical “nothing … and everything.” Unfortunately, Scott’s alternative for grand narratives is formulated with neither eloquence nor depth: “The world will decide. The world always decides.”
On a superficial level, Kingdom has certainly progressed a long way from the stereotypical and obstinate Hollywood images of Arabs we have grown so wary of. It is lamentable enough that it took so long in the first place, however, it must be understood that a few smiling Arabs do not by definition make a movie an insightful statement on Muslim culture, just as a negative portrayal of Crusaders do not necessarily indicate a truly self-critical understanding of one’s own history—Kingdom is neither.
Although I do not question Scott’s good intentions, a film that chooses a religious war as a platform from which to preach a secular and libertarian world view does not contribute to increased mutual understanding and does little to promote tolerance, as true tolerance requires the acceptance the “other” as he is, not as we would like him to be. The victor in Scott’s Crusades are neither moderate Muslims nor Christians, but the deeply secular, man-centred and anti-esoteric world view, so pervasive and overbearing in the modern Western world, a victor that bears no resemblance to either the deeply pious medieval Christian masses or the average conservative modern Arab Muslim. In principle, even the gospel of humanism, in spite of missing the mark in a medieval setting, could have been conveyed with subtlety and self-criticism. However, the script’s bluntness allows for only one perspective, and that’s not enough when dealing with such complex subject matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This article resulted from a conversation between the author and Art & Culture editor Dalia Yusuf.
** Rahma Bavelaar is a staff writer and editor of the IslamOnline.net Art &Culture page. She holds an MA in African Studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, UK. You can reach her at [email protected].