|
 |
|
|
| Tuesday, May 03, 2005 |
A movie of two minds?
Let it be said, the best thing written about "Kingdom of Heaven" is courtesy of Richard Corliss: "A movie of two minds is infinitely preferable to a movie with none."
Why is this the best that has been written on this epic of a film? Simply put, Ridley Scott's latest foray into the historical war flick has its flaws. In fact, it has more than its fair share of them.
Aside from the thin characters who shuffle onto the screen (and off again) with little in the way of believable motivation, there is the rushed unfolding of events that makes everything seem like you missed something on the cutting room floor. Aside from that, there is the ridiculous plot contrivances (thousands of years of settlement, lots of dustry environs, and a blacksmith crusader is the first one to think of digging a well), and aside from that there is the cumulative effect of all these flaws.
Because the film is so grand in scope, yet so rushed in its editting, we hardly have the time to get into the minds of the characters. That compounds the short attention given to their internal drives and motivations. The result? Cardboard cutouts all around, and where there is a third dimension we hardly have time to ponder it, and thus it ends up like a ghost we only thought we saw.
But of all the flaws, the greatest weakness of Scott's latesty foray into celluloid is his attempt to make the film overtly relevant to modern crises. I'm simply unable to comprehend a cast of characters fighting a holy war in the darkest decades of the Middle Ages spouting off about living in harmony with one another. And if Bloom's lead is really interested in saving the people of Jerusalem regardless of whether he keeps the city, why not simply surrender it to begin with? Oh yeah, then you wouldn't have a movie.
More than the out-of-place modern liberalism that dots so many of these ancient characters is Scott's attempt to portray the Muslims as noble and the bad, bad Christian warmongers as, well... bad, bad warmongers. I happen to share his politics, but I couldn't stay engaged with the film as I constantly recoiled at its grotesque simplifications and politically-correct hewing.
Nevertheless, I forgive "Kingdom of Heaven" its sins. Yes, it glosses over its sins. Yes, it tries to make us see the madness of dogmatic holy war -- listening Israeli-Palestinian aggitators, listening neo-con warmongers -- in the most ham-handed of ways. But it's just so damn pretty, and at least it's trying to be more than "XXX: State of the Union."
In other words, "A movie of two minds is infinitely preferable to a movie with none." This is a Ridley Scott film, after all. So expect absolutely beautiful imagery and stunning mastery of cinematic style. Expect an exquisite cast of actors who literally grace the screen. Expect a cinematic spectacle that's more than mere special effects magic. In short, expect a good film.
Just do not expect a great film. Do not expect "Gladiator," for this is not that film gem that jump started a host of pretenders. And no, I won't be the critic who calls this Ridley Scott's descent into that cast of pretenders, because this is a fine film. It's a film I recommend you go see.
Why? Because with its two minds, with its attempts (however ham-handed) to make you think as well as dazzle you, the audience will be made better. We will be wowed by the visuals, by the story (however improbable). And if we're paying any attention at all, we'll at least think about the political overtures of the film.
A classic it ain't. A Ridley Scott film it is, and that's enough -- more than enough.
|
|
|
|
