KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, DIRECTOR'S CUT
Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Edward Norton, Ghassan Massoud, Jeremy Irons. Dir. Ridley Scott, Fox, 2005 ☆☆☆☆A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS
Paul Scofield, Alice Hiller, Robert Shaw, Susannah York, Orson Welles. Dir. Fred Zinnemann, Columbia, 1966 ☆☆☆☆
"Uncompromising men are easy to admire." - Ian Bannen, in BRAVEHEART
Apologies at the outset for quoting Mel Gibson's epic exercise in homophobia, but the line came immediately to mind when thinking of both these films. In my callow youth I agreed with that statement. Now, as we fracture into tribes once more, each unwilling to bend for the other, I disagree with it. Uncompromising people look like overgrown 12 year-olds to me these days. And yet, what of people of conscience, who put their principles before most other concerns? Are they not both uncompromising and admirable? Are you saying, Russ, that Ghandi and MLK were overgrown 12 year-olds?
No, I'm not. I'm saying, though, that people of conscience who refuse compromise can be difficult to admire. Ghandi and MLK practiced humility. Not all people of conscience do, and is conscience not subjective?
I think it is. Pro-lifers claim to be people of conscience, but they nauseate me. Life is not black-white, not either-or, it's grey, it's a mess, and no one living believes themselves evil, especially those who do the most. Am I qualified to determine whose conscience is more valid?
I'm not. But I do.
Fred Zinnemann's 1966 A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS and Ridley Scott's 2005 KINGDOM OF HEAVEN each concern conscience more than their religious/political settings. Both the real-life Sir Thomas Moore and the heavily fictionalized Balian of Ibelin act according to their conscience, even if others suffer for it, and I found both men difficult to admire. Moore managed to limit the suffering to his family which, while hardly admirable, at least betters Balian, whose refusal of a political marriage contributes to the downfall of Christian-controlled Jerusalem, in which thousands die.
Fortunately for Scott and Balian, the ultimate trigger for the sacking of Jerusalem came from the death of Baldwin IV's 5 year-old nephew, who assumed the throne at his uncle's death. Whether his own mother, Sybella, Queen of Jerusalem actually poisoned the boy to prevent his suffering from leprosy remains unclear, and there's an unpleasant echo of the Christian belief Eve caused man's downfall, which surprised me from a film so unsympathetic to the Christian faith and the Crusades.
John Ford biographer Joseph McBride, in his commentary for Ford's CHEYENNE AUTUMN, says something to the effect that when we love deeply flawed and problematical films, at a certain point we have to go all-in and love them with all their issues. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, certainly flawed, works like that for me. I can discuss its problems in some detail, yet I keep going back to it, and love it a little more each time. I'm not an unconditional fan of Scott's. Much of his post-GLADIATOR ouvre does not thrill me, but KINGDOM, for all its flaws and indulgence of ridiculous tropes, does.
Sir Thomas Moore, respected within Roman Catholicism as a great martyr, defied England's Henry VIII by refusing to recognize his marriage to Anne Bolynn and his supremacy to the Pope in the Church of England. Not a fan of either royalty or the Pope - or authority, when you get down to it - I found Moore a little easier to admire, given the forces arrayed against him and the kangaroo court which sentenced him to death. (Full disclosure, I went to Catholic high schools where Moore's martyrdom was a part of the curriculum, possibly predisposing me to his cause. The Crusades - surprise! - get short shrift. Of Balian, I knew nothing until KINGDOM.)
Still, Moore's refusal to yield causes him and his family to lose their position and favor and his wife, daughter, and son-in-law were forced to flee the country for a time. At times, Moore's refusal looks less like conscience than stubborn priggishness. As does Balian's, which is a large part of why each makes a difficult protagonist. I kept shouting at my TV today, "Say what they want and spare yourself and your family, you dick!"
Of the two movies, I liked KINGDOM a little better. Scott takes aim at Christianity and the Church more than Islam, making them the villains, which conforms with my understanding of history and my intense dislike of fanaticism and racism. Releasing a film which can be seen as anti-Christian at the height of our wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a film which suggests our Middle Eastern adventures made war on Islam regardless of our leaders' claims otherwise, is a ballsy move (and a surprising one coming from Fox, whose news division helped fan the flames for both conflicts.) Zinnemann, though operating in an admittedly different time, sticks to a microsmic view of the history, its critique of the Church much less pointed.
Still, I think much of that preference owes more to KINGDOM's more modern voice and epic canvas, and to my love of action. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN features massive battles, buckets of blood, and a little bit of sex. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS has no action, unless we count Robert Shaw's Henry jumping off his royal barge into the mud, not even a suggestion of sex, and lots and lots of talking, all in playwright/screenwriter Robert Bolt's rapid-fire, sub-Elizabethan dialogue. Of the two, A MAN..., winner of Best Picture at the 1966 Oscars, is the more perfect film, at least from a story perspective, its tropes less apparent, its historical inconsistencies less glaring and absurd, but I can watch KINGDOM OF HEAVEN again and again, whereas this was my third viewing of A MAN... in the four years I've had the dvd.
That said, both films look fantastic, and A MAN, shot in '65, has no CG, whereas a hefty chunk of KINGDOM would not exist without digital effects. Ted Moore, DP on A MAN, who shot seven James Bond movies, including DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, as well as the original CLASH OF THE TITANS, makes Zinnemann's movie gorgeous, its scenes shot at magic hour on the Thames welcome moments of quiet among all the talk. John Mathieson, who started as DP for music videos like U2's "Mysterious Ways" before moving on to become Scott's resident cinematographer starting with GLADIATOR, does no less for KINGDOM, a particularly beautiful film for Scott, who has never made a bad-looking picture.
Comparing casts, I have difficulty ranking one above the other, though A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS' cast surround and support one of the UK's greatest Shakespereans, Paul Scofield, whereas KINGDOM's cast surround and carry Orlando Bloom, who will never be mistaken for an actor of Scofield's quality. I liked Bloom better here than in Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but it's the supporting cast, including those named above, as well as Brendan Gleeson, Michael Sheen, David Thewlis, Alexander Siddig, Liam Neeson, and Jon Finch who keep me engaged. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS' cast, including a great cameo by Welles as Cardinal Wolsey, Vanessa and Corin Redgrave, Leo McKern, and the screen debut of John Hurt - who makes a terrific Judas-figure - complement Scofield rather than compensate for him.
One of my favorite absurdities is the idea that agnostics are somehow weak because they won't commit to belief or disbelief. I'm agnostic and to me that makes most sense. I am suspicious of people who claim absolute belief in most anything. Absolutism goes along with refusal to compromise, binary thought, and intolerance. I cannot see how anyone finds absolute certainty admirable, never mind desirable. Seeing life as either-or traps the mind, denies complexity. Americans hate complexity, and I struggle with tolerating such a simplistic approach. Educated by Jesuits and Franciscans, and recovering from being in AA, I find faith fascinating, perplexing, and maddening. It's difficult to imagine a lifeform so vast and complex that we can't comprehend it being particularly interested in us and our petty and often hypocritical morality. I spent years praying every morning and night and never feeling as if anything listened, or cared, about me, yet still I wonder. Can a few billion people be completely deluded?
Religious faith destroys at least as often as it creates, harbors all manner of intolerance and hatred, and forces us to live according to rules which run contrary to all our instincts. Yet can we imagine Ghandi or MLK being the leaders they were without faith?
Maybe. Maybe not. I think about these things, though, and I enjoy movies which engage me at that level. These movies don't rate as "cool" with some cinephiles, certainly not with the movie-bros on twitter, who tend to focus solely on those few films deemed worthy by a certain Los Angeles repertory theatre. When I first started posting links on twitter I allowed my need for the approval of strangers to influence the movies I write about, and though it has been only a few weeks, I've been angry and unhappy with myself for not being true to my goal, which is to write passionately of the films I love regardless of people's reactions (or lack of same.)
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN tackle faith and conscience without fear. Zinnemann's film expresses a certain disapproval for Church excesses but makes no overt comment on organized religion. Scott's film clearly criticizes religion, or at least fanaticism, on both sides, which is part of why I give it the edge. As David Thewlis's character, a priest referred to only as The Hospitaller, tells Orlando Bloom, "I put no stock in religion...I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers."
Amen, brother.
This writeup, already TL;DR even by my standards, has failed to break down either film's story, look at the tropes and improbabilities which abound in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, or single out the great performances in each. Edward Norton as the leper-king Baldwin IV of Jerusalem gives what I would rate his best performance, all of it from behind a silver mask, only his eyes visible, his voice almost unrecognizable. Plenty of other sites break down the story in all the ways I have not, but that's kind of a copout.
Or maybe not. I never started out to write traditional reviews, only to discuss films which move me, inspire me, and which relate to my own story. I think I've accomplished that much, anyway. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is, in a number of ways, a better film than KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, but it's the latter, with all its faults and shortcomings, to which I respond more personally. Both satisfy, both contain much to love, but Scott's film feels alive in a way Zinnemann's never does. An interesting pairing, I can only commend them together if a viewer has most of a day to set aside - A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS runs a good two hours, Scott's director's cut three hours and fourteen minutes. Almost six hours in front of the TV, even with a break between, leaves me feeling zombified. As I do now. I may add to this writeup later today, but it's 8 a.m. and I need sleep more than I need a pithy closing graf.
Yeah, I got nothing. I'm out of gas. As is this writeup.
Comments
Post a Comment