Dramatic take on Crusades or political billy club?
Ridley Scott is one heck of a director, but now he’s gone and taken on the Crusades. Alas, not content to merely do that well, he’s also decided to take on modern Middle East politics via his highly revisionist take on the nobility of many of those involved in the Crusades.
Puh-leaze. I’m sorry. I do not wish to bash the film, which is not terrible. I cannot however let pass his attempt to ham-handedly invoke a political critique of modern Middle East muck-making and American imperial militarism in the guise of dramatic cinema. (And I DON’T like either modern Middle East muck-making or American imperial militarism — so what does that say for the subtlety of this film?)
In any event, a full take on the film can be seen over at Cinema.J.
http://www.zombietime.com/king…
I am torn I don’t know who to root for!? THe Crusaders or the arabs….
‘This better’, no, it is not better. It whitewashes Christian genocide. Saladin had the Rambam as his physician while Christian crusaders murdered Jews to and from the crusades. Razing Jewish villages was Christian practice for murdering Muslims. Saladin was not peaceful, but he was far ahead of his European peers in treatment of Jews. Saladin WAS the good guy IF there was one during the crusades.
To get a better understanding of your treatment by the world onto your poor souls, go to my comments made on 5-17-05, and early morning 5-18-05. It will explain it all in a nutshell!–I’m sure you can’t possibly figure it out for yourselves!