-- Before I lose it, I will burn it to the ground. Your holy places - ours. Every last thing in Jerusalem that drives men mad.-- I wonder if it would not be better if you did.
There's much in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven that may be seen to portend to modern day struggles. Scott's film is set during the time between the 2nd and 3rd crusades, when Christians have seized Jerusalem as their own and Muslims fought to reclaim it. Its existence as troubled then as it is now, with battles fought with equal conviction and righteousness on either side. William Monahan's script never preaches but instead offers a few wry observations about Jerusalem and religious conflict that very clearly could equally apply today. It cleverly eschews the temptation to present one side as good and the other as evil. This is a film that, whilst features a fictitious main character, presents a balanced portrayal of a number of historical characters and events.
While other movies could so easily have portrayed the Muslims as religious fanatics, Kingdom of Heaven instead presents them as arguably the more sympathetic race. This is helped, in part, by the impeccable performances of Ghassan Massoud and Alexander Siddig. Massoud in particular, as the Muslim military leader Saladin, excels in a role that he plays with understatement. His Saladin is compassionate and thoughtful; a man who speaks with authority and intelligence. William Monahan's script nicely reveals more about his character in subtle touches like Saladin's picking up a fallen Christian cross before placing it carefully upright. One simple action does not tell us that Saladin understands more about Jerusalem, religious conflict, or humanity than anyone else, but it does reveal how Saladin is both moderate and considerate.
The Christian's are led by the dying King Baldwin (an uncredited Edward Norton) who is hidden by bandages and a mask because of his advanced rabies. Power struggles between the various Christian Knights, Lords and Templars undermine Baldwin's truce with the Muslims, a truce that is completely vanquished upon Baldwin's death. His death heralds an epic battle in which the Muslims attempt to recapture Jerusalem, which comes to be is defended by a peasant blacksmith, Balian, who only came to Jerusalem to beg forgiveness for an act of rage inthe opening minutes of the film.
This is a Ridley Scott film, so it goes without saying (though I'll say it anyway) that it is exquisitely shot. Scott handles everything from the close ups to the battle scenes with style and this director's cut unquestionably enhances the film. The theatrical release ran 145 minutes, but this 194 minute cut gives more context to some of the conflicts in the film. This is not some self-gratifying extended version that puts in a couple of reels of film we could have done without. They're essential to the story and to the film. Monahan's final draft apparently ran an incredible 260 pages - equating to over 4 hours of film. This is simply not a story that can be adequately told in just over 2 hours. We learn more about the politics, the struggles and the relationships of the principles. Motivations become clearer; people's actions are more understood because we can see the consequences.
However, there are a couple of serious flaws that not even a director's cut can overcome. I'm sorry to say that one of the things that held me back from raving about this film as much as I do Scott's other work, was the performance of Orlando Bloom. I'm afraid that it isn't any better in this extended version. He simply has not got the standing required to pull off the role. He is so badly miscast that I just can't understand how Scott could get it so wrong. This is nothing against Bloom, who seems like a thoroughly decent guy - anyone who starred in Ricky Gervais' Extras gets some large brownie points in my book, but he is badly out of his depth here.
In these sword and sandal epics, there comes a point in the film where our hero delivers a rousing speech to rally the troops. Bloom just cannot convince as someone who will light a fire that burns inside you. He doesn't strike me as someone who can inspire or motivate someone to accomplish magnificent achievements. He just has not got the gravitas for a role like this, and it doesn't matter whether he has buffed up or not. Everything else, from the voice to the delivery, is all wrong. It's not as bad as Brad Pitt's effort in Troy, but it pales into complete insignificance if stacked alongside Russell Crowe's performance in Gladiator. Comparisons may be unfair but if you are aiming for greatness, you have to put yourself up against the best. I'm afraid Bloom falls a long way short.
There are other flaws, though none as damaging. Eva Green is not particularly effective in her role as Baldwin's sister, although she fares better in the director's cut, enjoying a number of scenes that were originally left on the cutting room floor that actually (and I come back to a word I used earlier) give her character more context. Yet in the longer version she's still not very memorable and again I'll (probably unfairly) compare her to her Gladiator counterpart - and in so doing you have to say she is completely out-acted by the stunning Connie Nielsen, in a not too dissimilar role.
I've mentioned Gladiator twice now but comparisons are perfectly valid since this a genre that Scott himself reinvigorated - in fact he practically reinvented it. Gladiator is a brilliant piece of filmmaking - something beyond doubt, even if it's not a film you particularly enjoyed. Scott's directorial accomplishment on that film was magnificent but he has created a rod for his own back since it is his own film that'll be held up as the torch-bearer for any future such epic. Well Scott has made another very good film here, but one that just doesn't compare that well to its superior predecessor.
Director's Cut: B+
Theatrical Cut: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment