(no subject)
May. 20th, 2005 09:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
liptonrm_backupGuess what movie I saw last night? Come on, guess.
HA! You guessed wrong. I did not see Ep. III. I think I'll need some moral support when I attempt that particular trek to the cinema. No, I saw Kingdom of Heaven and it was quite entertaining. I definitely give it 4 out of 5 stars.
This is a movie that is growing on me. The more I think about it the more intrigued I am. It's a movie of ideas and ideals. The central question of the movie is what is the kingdom of heaven? Is it only a dream of a better world or is it something we can create in this one? Ridley Scott's answer is that such a kingdom can be formed when men of good conscience work together irregardless of differences of opinion and religion. His heroes are flawed men who strive to protect what they've built and the people who rely on them.
My thoughts are rather jumbled together and I haven't taken the time to form a clear and concise thesis for what I'm trying to say. My mind has been gnawing on the idea of the possibility of a progressive society such as the one Scott portrayed. Is his vision historically accurate? Frankly, I don't know and somewhat doubt it. Scott deals in possibilities. His seminal historical epic, Gladiator was historical fiction that, on a meta level, was a investigation of what could have been. Kingdom of Heaven shares in that same historical exploration as Scott very obviously wants us, the viewers, to ask ourselves what could have been if only Balian had chosen differently and the kingdom that Tiberias and Baldwin had constructed had been able to stand and survive against the strong tides of fanaticism that were threatening to overwhelm them. The Jerusalem that Scott depicted was an ideal, the Golden City on the Hill, the City of Peace, the Kingdom of Heaven and it leads one to truly wonder if we are capable of creating that now in the present day or if we are doomed to repeat those same mistakes again and again and again.
Scott's view of religion was interesting. It's true that religion is a very dangerous thing and when people corrupt it they can turn it into the excuse for their wars and hatred. Fanatacism is the easy road, it doesn't require thought or growth or true personal introspection, things that I find to be integrally important as both a religious and a spiritual being. The purpose of religion is to make us become better individuals, better human beings. It is patently obvious in our collective world history that when that impulse towards improvement is turned outwards and focused on 'perfecting the heathen' rather then inwards where it rightly belongs horrible things have occured.
These are fascinating themes and ideas. On to the mechanics of the film itself. Ridley Scott is a highly accomplished film-maker. Every shot was breathtaking. The way he played with the color pallete of many scenes was inspired. He knows how to choose accomplished actors and receive incredible performances from them. Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe but he is a movie star and gave a capable performance. He's not an incredibly charismatic performer but he did a good job. The music was used wonderfully to invoke emotion and also as a thematic element in and of itself. I was impressed to hear the way that the composer, Harry Gregson-Williams, combined catholic and islamic influences and crafted a beautiful, harmonious synthesis of musical traditions.
Unfortunately the movie was character-lite. We were left with little understanding of the motivations of some of the driving characters in the film, such as Sibylla, Guy de Lusignan and Reynald the Templar. I want to know more about Sibylla and who she was. She intrigued me. Scott did such an incredible job of showing the complexities of many of his other characters it would have been nice to see the same care given to the religiously fanatical villains of the piece. Everyone has layers, even the fanatics.
I can't stop thinking about this movie and hoping that we are, some day, able to create such a community where people are "of one heart and one mind and [dwell] in righteousness and there [is] no poor amongst them" and all people "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort" irregardless of religion or race or creed. Some day.
Wow, those were quite the deep thoughts. Not too bad for a movie that starred two elves, a werewolf, a jedi master and a Starfleet doctor. I'm impressed. ;-)
HA! You guessed wrong. I did not see Ep. III. I think I'll need some moral support when I attempt that particular trek to the cinema. No, I saw Kingdom of Heaven and it was quite entertaining. I definitely give it 4 out of 5 stars.
This is a movie that is growing on me. The more I think about it the more intrigued I am. It's a movie of ideas and ideals. The central question of the movie is what is the kingdom of heaven? Is it only a dream of a better world or is it something we can create in this one? Ridley Scott's answer is that such a kingdom can be formed when men of good conscience work together irregardless of differences of opinion and religion. His heroes are flawed men who strive to protect what they've built and the people who rely on them.
My thoughts are rather jumbled together and I haven't taken the time to form a clear and concise thesis for what I'm trying to say. My mind has been gnawing on the idea of the possibility of a progressive society such as the one Scott portrayed. Is his vision historically accurate? Frankly, I don't know and somewhat doubt it. Scott deals in possibilities. His seminal historical epic, Gladiator was historical fiction that, on a meta level, was a investigation of what could have been. Kingdom of Heaven shares in that same historical exploration as Scott very obviously wants us, the viewers, to ask ourselves what could have been if only Balian had chosen differently and the kingdom that Tiberias and Baldwin had constructed had been able to stand and survive against the strong tides of fanaticism that were threatening to overwhelm them. The Jerusalem that Scott depicted was an ideal, the Golden City on the Hill, the City of Peace, the Kingdom of Heaven and it leads one to truly wonder if we are capable of creating that now in the present day or if we are doomed to repeat those same mistakes again and again and again.
Scott's view of religion was interesting. It's true that religion is a very dangerous thing and when people corrupt it they can turn it into the excuse for their wars and hatred. Fanatacism is the easy road, it doesn't require thought or growth or true personal introspection, things that I find to be integrally important as both a religious and a spiritual being. The purpose of religion is to make us become better individuals, better human beings. It is patently obvious in our collective world history that when that impulse towards improvement is turned outwards and focused on 'perfecting the heathen' rather then inwards where it rightly belongs horrible things have occured.
These are fascinating themes and ideas. On to the mechanics of the film itself. Ridley Scott is a highly accomplished film-maker. Every shot was breathtaking. The way he played with the color pallete of many scenes was inspired. He knows how to choose accomplished actors and receive incredible performances from them. Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe but he is a movie star and gave a capable performance. He's not an incredibly charismatic performer but he did a good job. The music was used wonderfully to invoke emotion and also as a thematic element in and of itself. I was impressed to hear the way that the composer, Harry Gregson-Williams, combined catholic and islamic influences and crafted a beautiful, harmonious synthesis of musical traditions.
Unfortunately the movie was character-lite. We were left with little understanding of the motivations of some of the driving characters in the film, such as Sibylla, Guy de Lusignan and Reynald the Templar. I want to know more about Sibylla and who she was. She intrigued me. Scott did such an incredible job of showing the complexities of many of his other characters it would have been nice to see the same care given to the religiously fanatical villains of the piece. Everyone has layers, even the fanatics.
I can't stop thinking about this movie and hoping that we are, some day, able to create such a community where people are "of one heart and one mind and [dwell] in righteousness and there [is] no poor amongst them" and all people "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort" irregardless of religion or race or creed. Some day.
Wow, those were quite the deep thoughts. Not too bad for a movie that starred two elves, a werewolf, a jedi master and a Starfleet doctor. I'm impressed. ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-20 09:01 pm (UTC)hello!
Date: 2005-05-23 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 01:28 pm (UTC)Sidig El Fadil aka Alexander Fadil aka Dr. Bashir has a very key role.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 04:03 pm (UTC)BASHIR! BASHIR! I was about to say he was my favorite Stark Trek doctor. And then I remembered Bones. And then I remembered the doctor from Voyager. Damn Star Trek had good doctors.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 06:42 pm (UTC)You're right, Star Trek had some damn good doctors. It's a pity Crusher never lived up to that high standard.
Re: hello!
Date: 2005-05-23 06:44 pm (UTC)Hee, Sahara is mostly about how pretty Matthew McConaughey is without his shirt on and Kingdom of Heaven is mostly about Orlando Bloom's hair. Sometimes it pays to be shallow. =D
no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 06:53 pm (UTC)Star Trek did. But it does make me feel guilty. I know nothing about Enterprise, but when I look at the captains, who's my least favorite? Janeway. Which doctor do I like least? Crusher.
I feel like I'm disgracing my gender here, but then Star Trek just didn't do that well with female characters. Uhura had her spunk, Guinan was pretty bad-ass, I loved Kira and Torres was interesting at first, but overall, the male characters tend to have so much more interest to them. It is sad about Crusher. I didn't dislike her, and she had potential, but never quite made it.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-23 08:07 pm (UTC)And Janeway was never presented as a particularly effective Captain. She was a good scientist, sure, but not very good at things like leading the troops and morale building and things like that. It was almost like she didn't even want to be there most of the time. Kira or Jadzia Dax would've kicked her ass out of the airlock and taken over and Janeway probably would've been grateful.
I like that we turned Kingdom of Heaven into Star Trek
Date: 2005-05-24 03:31 am (UTC)I've read a few Star Trek Novels - mostly by Peter David that seem to go into the female characters a bit better and made me like them more.
Janeway really annoyed me. I was so excited when I found out they would have a female captain and then they had her be a not-good captain. As you said, she just wasnt' cut out for command. Which is fine, because not everyone is, but why was she there then? She was a good chunk of why I gave up on Voyager. Certainly not the only reason, but a driving force.
DAX! How could I forget Dax when I listed kickass female characters? *is ashamed*