Kingdom Of Heaven

[ewx]

We went to see Kingdom Of Heaven last night, which is loosely based on the events surrounding the end of the crusader kingdom of Jerusalem. Lots of nonsense, but good to see some familiar scenes coming up, in particular the end of Reynald of Châtillon, which was described by Saladin's secretary 'Imād ad-Din al-Isfahani thusly:

The devil and is crew were taken, the King and his counts were captured, and the Sultan sat to review his chief prisoners, who came forward stumbling like drunken men. The Grand Master of the Templars was brought in in his sins, and many of the Templars and Hospitallers with him. The King Guy and his brother Geoffrey were escorted in, with Hugh of Jubail, Humphrey, and Prince Arnāt of al-Karak [i.e. Reynald of Châtillon], who was first to fall into the net. The Sultan had vowed to have his blood and had said: ‘When I find him I shall kill him immediately.’ When the Prince was brought before him he made him sit beside the King, and reproached him for his treachery and paraded his wickedness before him. ‘How many times have you made a vow and broken your oath; how many obligations have you failed to honour, how many treaties made and unmade, and agreements reached and repudiated!’ The interprer passed on this reply from him: ‘This is how kings have always behaved; I have only followed the path of custom.’ Meanwhile the King was dying from thirst and was shaking with fear like a drunkard. But Saladin addressed him affably, calmed the wave of terror that had swept over him, assuaged his fear and reassured him in his heart; he sent for iced water for him, to soothe his burning throat and quench his tormenting thirst. The the King passed the goblet to the Prince for him too to quench his thirst, and he took it in his hand and drank. The Sultan said to the King: ‘You did not have my permission to give him drink, and so that drink does not imply his safety at my hand.’ Then he mounted his horse and left him to roast himself at the fire of his fear; he stayed out riding until his tent had been pitched, his standards and banners planted and his troops had returned from the battle to their base. Then he entered the pavilion, summoned the Prince, raised his sword and struck him on the shoulder, and as he fell ordered that his head should be struck off. He was dragged out by the feet. This was done in the King's presence and filled him with despair and terror. The Sultan realized that the King was consumed with fear and assualted by terror and consternation, and so he called him to side, made him come up close and reassured and calmed him. He put him at his ease as he stood at his side and calmed him by saying: ‘This man's evil deeds have been his downfall, and as you saw his perfidy has been his destruction. He died for his sins and wickedness; the spark he struck from life is extinguished and the source of his being has dried up.’

I have to say it's a shame they missed out Reynald's self-justification; I think it would have been easy to work in and would have fitted his character as portrayed in the film well.

Reynald's attack on a caravan during a truce appears to have really happened too, and is mentioned by Bahā' ad-Din Ibn Shaddād, who served in Saladin's army and wrote a biography of him; although it seems he took prisoners rather than massacring them.

The waterless condition of the Frankish army at the battle of Hittin is also recorded, though Saladin drew them out by attacking the city of Tiberias rather than merely marching towards Jerusalem; the Count of Tiberias argued against taking the bait, as somewhat reflected in the film.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

In what sense is the film "nonsense"?

I've been umming and ahing about seeing it. The trailer made it look very Christian-centric but also very epic and pretty; apparently the film itself is much more balanced in its presentation than the trailer, though.

In what sense is the film "nonsense"?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Any time Orlando Bloom opens his mouth, pretty much l-)

Re: In what sense is the film "nonsense"?

[gareth-rees.livejournal.com]

Indeed, whenever Bloom has to do any acting, the film really drags. Especially the scenes with Sibylla. Luckily they have the sense to have another piece of spectacle fairly regularly so as not to let the audience fall asleep.

Some of the history is really mangled. Where were Balian's brothers Hugh and Baldwin? And what happened to Sibylla's son, briefly King Baldwin V?

Re: In what sense is the film "nonsense"?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I was actually expecting something with about as much connection to the history as the recent Arthur film had to the myth behind that story, so I was pleasantly surprised by how close to the historical record the film was l-)