Kingdom of Heaven: The Director’s Cut
Unfairly known as the Ridley Scott that’s a bit of a turkey and clunky? Prince Charles Cinema’s season of long player films restores Kingdom of Heaven’s reputation through a showing of the Director’s Cut version.
Whilst I can’t recall the original film detail for detail, there is more nuance now. Establishing landscape shots and more chat broaden out the relationships between Orlando Bloom’s grieving Balian and his avaricious cleric brother (Michael Sheen). There is also more close up gore in the fight scenes — it’s wince inducing and definite look away territory, though at the same time I admire how real the fighting looks and how probably no actors were harmed in the making of this movie.
It doesn’t achieve the epicness or satisfying storytelling of Gladiator — partly due to the naff Braveheart style speeches of Balian when faced with an invasion by Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) and his forces. Said no medieval person ever! (Although certainly medieval communities were living more peaceably than the Crusader propaganda — and yet not, as religious tolerance came at a price, a tax, and with limitations of what they could and could not do, even the wearing of certain clothes, costumes or badges was prescribed). As ever, it was a lot more complex than the Crusaders and indeed popular myth suggests. In redeeming the nobility of Saladin, and giving a portrayal of a mixed and divided Christian community, there is one thing missing — the Jews. They are mentioned, but we never see them, and given where we are — Jerusalem — this is a strange people group to overlook! Instead the film chooses to focus sharply on contrasting Muslim vs Christian ‘invaders’, perhaps also seeking to compare events to the Gulf Wars, and suggesting that the Muslims were more tolerant infact than the Crusaders.
This is an intriguing movie as rather than modernising or Python-esquing its medieval history, it seeks to immerse, to understand, to portray vividly, even the religiousity of the time and to consider rather than doing something obvious and making judgements. Though at the same time it does play fast and loose with some elements — like the hair cuts (and Sibylla’s wardrobe!)
It is a fascinating story with BIG characters and BIGGER relationships. Vitally the Director’s Cut restores the dynamics of the relationship between the King’s sister Sibylla (Eva Green), her horrible power grasping husband Guy de Lusignan (Martin Csokas), Balian and Sibylla’s noble yet suffering brother, an astonishing Edward Norton, played entirely covered and speaking through an gleaming silver mask, as the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV. We are in the Crusader kingdom here and Sibylla destabilises the whole system leading to a revenge attack by Saladin and a power play by her horrible husband.
What I wanted was more Jeremy Irons, for the moments when his advisory Raymond III of Tripoli aka Tiberias are on the screen are pure magic. He is shown as wise, knowing and humourous, not to mention a strong warrior magnate. Pity Baldwin IV trying to hold together all these powerful magnates who have carved and schemed out kingdoms for themselves (and having to listen to them all bicker all day long). The Templar Knights are the villains here — although they are a front for Guy de Lusignan’s hatred and power seizure.
More too I wanted extra screen time for David Thewlis, a Chaucer like character of the Hospitaller Knight, faithful and hopeful (but not without some earthy every day life experiences). Sadly at the end he goes into a battle knowing that he cannot win, because his Order wills it, and he is peacefully resigned to God’s will. Additionally I wanted more Edward Norton on screen for the times when we do see him he brings a tenderness to scenes, especially when he is honourably (and sacrificially) achieving a public peace, and staggers off his horse to a litter and his death. Not to mention the heart-rending moment when Sibylla beholds her dying brother again and sees how his skin disease has ravaged him (and yet he carried on courageously).
A hidden theme is living successfully with disabilities here which could have been explored a lot more — a person who is disabled is a respected king and law maker. A bit more could have been pushed here to comment on our society today — such as the King’s accessibility and mobility is enabled by having Baldwin’s horse kneel rather than him leaping from it.
Oh that Liam Neeson could have been here on screen for longer too — rather than his ‘I will find you’ constant, he gets to act here! and enjoy a fully rounded character. Though it’s hard to credit a seasoned Crusader warrior letting his guard down and suddenly losing his protective chain mail. Did enjoy the banter between his retinue of merry men too! (Another great re-inclusion from this edit).
Sibylla had a more effective, wider role in this version — more than the galloping around love interest — we see her as a mother, as a proud royal who thinks she is above God’s laws and commands, very aware of her status and of the politics around her, and yet faced with terrible choices to make — also someone can rule, but because of her gender and need for a strong army, will not. We also see her shame, repentance and desire to make amends at the end. Eva Green portrays her character with sympathy — although we do not always like her or her choices. As a result she is much more complex, fascinating and compelling to watch on screen and we get a bigger sense of Balian’s lost wife and child through a flashback scene, contrasted with the politically machinating Queen/Regent to be. Contrastingly, Baldwin V becomes a more present figure too — the boy king and knightly prince, being trained up Sultan style in the ‘harem’ of his mother, as well as the jarring mixture of French and Arabic cultures swirling together.
A weakness is the ‘villains’ in the story. They are pantomimey, greasy haired and very strange. We never really explored why Sibylla’s husband wanted to usurp her son’s (and her) royal power and mystique, beyond ‘must have’ and a very obvious hatred of the Muslim faith and people. Similarly we never really got why (beyond being freed) equally greasy Raymond of Chatillon (Reynauld) was willing to be Guy de Lusignan’s stooge and literally do his dirty work — dishonouring, raping and murdering Saladin’s sister to start a war and break the carefully, decently negotiated peace. Given that he is still potentially leprous too, why is the standing on his dignity Guy willing to go anywhere near him?
The treatment of Saladin’s sister is heart-breaking, disturbed in her prayers, her privacy and her peaceful status. She keeps stating who she is and presumably requesting safe quarter — which she is unjustly denied. Her body we never see reclaimed, although even in conquest Saladin romantically defends Christian symbols, righting a fallen cross. In the desire to give a better portrayal, this maybe romanticizes too far? Though the legend could be true…
Along with Jewish people, missing too are the Byzantines who kicked off the Crusades in the first place by asking for Western Europe to help them protect Jerusalem, and often got the rough end of the Crusades, who overran their territories, looted and murdered their sophisticated society. But it is hinted at through the comfortable living in the quarters we see on screen, along with the extreme discomfort of dirty water, heat and sand, and irrigation systems. Nor do we really get a sense of the wider Catholic Church looking to go global and reclaim its historic lands — apart from in the greedy and politick, almost cowardly Heraclius of Jerusalem. He seems to be a symbol (along with the Templars) for all of divided, squabbling Christendom. I do love the killer line of his ‘covert to Islam..repent later’ as an expediency.
Overall, the Director’s Cut is a superior, extensive movie which looks profoundly at faith (contrasting faith which matters, with faith that is merely political and shallow), what it was really like to be on Crusade, and mashes up an excellent cast of actors to produce a thrilling story. Iain Glenn as Richard I!!!! I like the romantic flashbacks of Balain and his wife, and Godfrey remembering meeting Balain’s mother, and how Balain is constantly pushed back towards God and faith, even when He doesn’t know where God is or what He is doing. Sibylla’s grief and self-imposed penance is incredibly moving too (tho she lacks a headpiece to make it real) — and it is wonderful to see that she does reunite with her blacksmith in the end. Comprehensively, this version makes us conjecture a world where God is not dead but very much alive and active, even in trying to ignore Him, Balain admits that there is a God there to be run away from. What would a world where belief is paramount look like and how would this touch and motivate people? Intriguingly there are many discussions about what Jesus would say and do in contrast to those who claim to represent him, who and what is the true Church, and amidst the epic sword play and landscapes and even bigger characters, it makes us think and look again…(in ways that the trimmed version left out, retained in the editing suite).
