In the movie Scott does what he does best: he delivers a sumptuous feast for the eye, a cinematic experience, and the movie contains some truly sublime moments. But (and that's a very large "But") the movie is fatally flawed. It's not flawed because of historical inaccuracies per se - there are many, and most of them, in the interests of dramatic effect, are understandable (if rather clunky) - no, the movie is fatally flawed because scriptwriter and director couldn't resist making very partisan (and fatuous) 21st-century points using 12th-century events. And what is worse, if the 12th-century facts didn't fit the required idea of truth then they were changed. Sorry guys, you just can't do that. Rewriting history to suit yourselves is called propaganda.

Yet we can easily see what the idea behind the movie was. A superficial comparison between the events in the Holy Land in the 12th century and events on the ground today in the Middle East and in Afghanistan shows similarities: "Western" ideologies are being forced on a less-than-receptive Muslim population whose own ideology is consequently being galvanized to strike back. How easy it would be to craft a historical epic that encapsulates the lazy (but comfortable) prejudice of the chattering classes: West bad; Everywhere-else good.

But there was a problem. History, inconveniently, records that the Crusaders were not all bad and the Saracens were not all good. The solution proved surprisingly easy: History just needed to be altered a little. Once that was agreed then the script could be written in the sure knowledge that factual alterations, while being, perhaps, a little unseemly, were all for the greater good. The chattering classes are always right, after all, even if facts need to be changed in order to "prove" that rightness.

What the script required above all was a host of baddies so irredeemably nasty that audiences would boo and hiss with such happy abandon that they would fail to notice the implausibility of such black-and-white (and cynically presented) ideas of good and evil. And what baddies did the scriptwriter come up with? Step forward the Order of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, better known to most of us as the Knights Templars. Yes, my friends, nothing bad happens in the movie without the Templars being behind it: they rape and pillage; they massacre the innocent; they lust after Muslim blood; they provoke war, war, war; they drink lots of wine; and last but not least, they are all very stupid.

Such Templar nastiness is encapsulated in the makeup of the two baddest characters in the movie, Guy of Lusignan and Reynald of Chatillon. Both men were real historical figures and both figured prominently in the fight against Saladin, but (and this is another very large "But") a cursory glance at the history books shows us that Guy of Lusignan was NOT a Templar and Reynald of Chatillon was also NOT a Templar. To add fictitious traits to historical characters simply to make them fit a required prejudice is hardly the way to credibly enforce a point.

Fearing that too much of a good thing is perhaps NOT such a good thing the scriptwriter gives us a few "nice" Crusaders in order to feign objectivity. Chief among them (for the purpose of this article) are the central character, Balian of Ibelin (played by Orlando Bloom) and an unnamed Hospitaller chaplain-brother (played by David Thewlis). It is through these characters that the "message" of the movie is delivered: We should learn to love and understand each other; fanaticism is bad; religion is worse; Catholic priests are even worse still; and always stand up for your principals (but only if those principals satisfy the dictates of political correctness). These are noble sentiments perhaps; but they are also entirely obvious and about as profound (and effective) as the warblings of a hippie in a flowery meadow.

And yet I like both characters. Bloom carries off his role as the cleverest blacksmith in Christendom very well. His Renaissance skills are a little implausible in a man of the forge, to be sure - he reads Latin; he becomes an expert swordsman after only one lesson; he is a skilled mathematician AND civil engineer; he skillfully woos and beds princesses; and he leads armies and defends cities with aplomb - but if we suspend belief completely he makes sense, completely. He bears almost no resemblance to his historical namesake but that doesn't really matter. His chief purpose is to be a sort of Bono in chain mail, and when all is said and done, he looks good.

The David Thewlis character is my favorite in the movie. We are never told he is a Hospitaller but given the historical-period in question he can be nothing but (the way he deftly extracts arrows from flesh is a clue). He turns up now and again to deliver wise homilies and to shake his head ruefully (but good-naturedly) at the madness around him. He is one of the good guys and we can't help but like him. We are meant to see him and his order as the wise and noble face of Crusade - as opposed to the nasty, boorish and bigoted Templars - but in reality the Knights Hospitallers and the Knights Templars were very similar orders with similar aims. Neither was much better nor much worse than the other. They were simply rivals and that rivalry occasionally erupted into violence. That was the way of the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades.

But does it really matter if moviemakers play fast and loose with history? No, ordinarily it doesn't; they always have done and always will do. But in Kingdom of Heaven there is clearly a political agenda being played out. Again, that is fair enough; political points can be made just as effectively in movies as in any other medium. The problem comes when a political ideal or point is contradicted by history and instead of altering the point or ideal the moviemaker alters the history. That is overstepping the mark; and it is also counterproductive because it betrays the weakness of the original point being made. The infantile political-ideal being pushed (West bad; let's all loath ourselves) has not much going for it if we need to invent our demons in order to exorcise them.

Kingdom of Heaven could have been a truly great movie. It still is an enjoyable one but it is spoiled by its ham-fisted moralizing and ludicrous (and very one-sided) villainy. The second half of the 12th century was the seminal period in the clash between Crusaders and Saracens. If the movie had simply dealt with the drama of that fascinating period without trying to superimpose modern-day sensibilities (and prejudices) onto it then it would have been a whole lot more satisfying for every viewer whatever their religion or political beliefs. Instead the movie is a beautiful, occasionally-moving but disingenuous mess; and that's a shame.

A main goal of a filmmaker, be it the producer, director, writer, or anyone else involved in the creation of the story, is to entertain an audience. This is a very simple statement, but one that has many different variations in getting to the main goal. However, even though entertainment is the single most important aspect of filmmaking, or at least in today's high dollar film industry, those involved in the story also want to bring out specific ideas and historical perspectives, because the more the audience thinks while they are laughing, thinks when they are crying, and thinks long after the credits have rolled, the better for the creators to judge the level of entertainment they brought to their audience.

One of the most expensive and exposed types of movies would be the epic saga.' Usually these movies are historical in nature and revolve around developing a story around some sort of soldier who becomes the hero.' In studying the Japanese Samurai and the Medieval Knight, there are two movies that I watched to see how the creators of the movies brought out their stories from the historical times: The Last Samurai, starring Tom Cruise, and Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom. First, I will give my own critique, then I will give a brief explanation from the directors of the film, then I will make a comparison of the two films.

Nobody living today was alive during the times that these two movies covered. It is hard pressed to say what it really was like, but we, as the viewers can look from the historical perspective to see how close these stories accurately depicted the warriors of the time and location. Even though both of these movies give a decent insight about the eras and warriors being covered, they are entertainment stories, not documentaries.

I feel that these movies are art forms, and stories to be told considering that they are loosely based on factual events. But in being loosely based on facts, one must consider what they are based on. We know that the character Kotsumoto in The Last Samurai is based on Takamori Saigo, a very powerful warrior and statesman who helped to overthrow the shogunate and give way to the Meiji Restoration of 1868. Also, the young Emporer Mutsuhito was trying to modernize a country who, though used to have the best warriors in the world, was falling far behind. The United States Navy arrived in Japan in 1853, and the arms deals that were discussed in the movie are accommodations to the developments into modernization of weaponry that the United States and other western powers helped to usher in.1

In Kingdom of Heaven, the King of Jerusalem portrayed was in effect King Baldwin IV, and the great Saracen general Saladin was a portrayal of the same Saracen leader, who both lived at the same time and held great respect for each other, though they still looked out for the interests of their own nations. The different knights show the values of knighthood through Balian, the main character (representing Balian of Ibelin who defended Jerusalem at the end of the Christian rule), and the radical Knights Templar, who sought to destroy everyone in the name of Christianity.2

The stories are supremely dramatic and I feel they did a good job at entertainment; however, it is nearly impossible to consider every factor and develop every character in a two to three hour story. Both movies are bogged down by chunky moments' of clich epic dialogue and monologues, both are dragged into the choppy development of the reluctant hero who makes a statement far away from his own home, but in the effect of the roles as warriors, this can be the case. Even though both grossly oversimplifies the clashes of two different cultures (the old ways of Japan and modernization compared to Christian Europe and the Muslim dominated Holy Lands) the development for the individual understanding of the warrior code to the unknowing audience is done pretty well, be it chivalry for the knights or bushido for the samurai.

But what about the filmmakers? Even though the audience can critique the movie as much as possible, we must understand why they did these movies and what there motivation was.

Edward Zwick, the director of the movie The Last Samurai, said that famed Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa was probably one of the main reasons he became a filmmaker. Also an avid student of history, his favorite part of Japanese history was the transitional period of the mid 19th century. "In every culture, that moment of change from the antique to the modern is especially poignant and dramatic. It is also wondrously visual. Each image, each landscape, each room tells the story, the juxtaposition of the old and new. A man in a bowler hat strolls beside a woman wearing a kimono. A man firing a repeating rifle faces a man wielding a sword.1"

Zwick's movies have often been about honor, such as The Last Samurai and its dealings with the bushido code of the samurai. "First in college and then for years after, I read a great deal of Japanese history," Zwick said. "I was deeply moved by Ivan Morris's The Nobility of Failure, which tells the story of Saigo Takamori, one of Japan's most famous figures, who first helped create and then rebelled against the new government. His beautiful and tragic life became the point of departure for our fictional tale.1"

Just like Edward Zwick, the fascination for the stories that developed into the movies started early, whether it was is fascination with trebuchet's and other medieval siege weapons to the battles of the times that are still important today.

"You might do a magnificent job of creating an unfamiliar world a far place, a far-off time, or both with the most skilled filmmakers and the best technology available. But at the end of the day, you have to make sure that world is inhabited by people whose lives and fates we care about and whose story has something to say to us. The Crusades were a sometimes glorious, often tragic, and world-shaping series of events that are still having an impact on events today. I hope that in opening a cinematic window on that time, we're doing the job that good drama is meant to do: to excite our emotions, stir our souls, and make us think, all at one We set out to tell a terrific story from a supremely dramatic age not to make a documentary or a piece that aims to moralize or propagandize.2"

Both directors seemed to hold enough interest in the time periods they covered to understand the historical perspective, but also understood the entertainment factor: People that go to see samurais want to see samurais fighting, and those who go to see knights expect to see some good battle scenes.

The best way to compare the two films would be to discuss the codes for the warriors in each movie. In Kingdom of Heaven, it does not discuss chivalry, because in essence, chivalry is still 200 years removed from the knighthood.' There is no system of heraldry to identify knight clans and any knight can dub another man a knight. The closest we have to the accuracy of a pre-chivalrous code would be when Balian is knighted by his father, based from the 12th century source L'Ordene de chevalerie, describing the procedure as this. "The candidate was first bathed, the bath symbolizing the washing away of his sins. Then he was clothed in a white robe symbolizing his determination to defend God's law.In the church he was invested with his accoutrements: the gilded spur, to give him courage to serve God; the sword, to fight the enemy and protect the poor people from the rich.' Finally, he received the colee, a blow of the hand on the shoulder or head, in remembrance of Him who ordained you and dubbed you knight.2" It was a warrior class whose sole purpose was to defend God's law and righteousness.

In The Last Samurai follows the warrior code of bushido, that grew from the bonds of unwavering feudal loyalty to the vassal, or the patron-client system. It borrowed heavily from Bhuddism and Confucianism in the aspects of emphasizing duty and loyalty to one's superior, heroic courage, honesty and justice, polite courtesy, compassion, and complete sincerity as a complete way of life. It was taught as the standard of conduct for samurais, and as we see at the end of the movie, is what is melded together with industrialization for the cult of emperor worship until 1945.

Both movies covered the time periods in general very well, though not necessarily painting the exact historic figures entirely accurately. But, just as both directors stated, they understood the historical context but also understood that the audience wanted a good dramatic story. In the comparisons, we can see the warriors' of each locale and time period underwent different measures of training and followed certain codes. To understand the two different types of warriors and their time periods, one must actually do some secondary studying, the movies will not do the trick. However, for a good two to three hours spent, the movies are entertaining and provide a bit of insight into the minds of knights and samurais.

Resources

1."The Last Samurai" http://lastsamurai.warnerbros.com/html_index.php. Nov 26, 2005

2. Scott, Ridley and Nancy Friedman. Kingdom of Heaven. Newmarket Press. New York,

NY. 2005. pgs 8-33.

3.Scott, Ridley. Kingdom of Heaven. 20th Century Fox. 2005.

4. Zwick, Edward. The Last Samurai. Warner Brothers. 2003.