I saw Ridley Scott\u2019s Kingdom of Heaven<\/em> today. I\u2019ll write a review soon. But first, a few comments on how it fits into the trend of new \u201cspiritual\u201d films\u2026<\/p>\n Better to call it Kingdom of Tolerance.<\/em> Kingdom of Heaven <\/em>is a movie of and for our times, truly. It tries very hard to talk about a historical clash of Christians and Muslims without offending Christians and Muslims. It does this by portraying a wide variety of religious individuals, and by focusing on sins of arrogance and brutality instead of errors in dogma.<\/p>\n But it definitely has a message to people on both sides. And that message is this: Our highest priority should be getting along, even if that means revising our religious convictions, because if God expects something of us that gets in the way of cultural harmony, then he must not be God at all.<\/p>\n Sounds a bit contrary to Christ\u2019s suggestion that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.<\/p>\n Further, it suggests that, no matter what religion will tell you, the one true path of righteousness is the path of good deeds\u2026 that holiness is found only in our own kindness, not in any commitment to obedience to God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n In one memorable moment, the hero declares that he is going to do something his way, and if God has a problem with it, well, then he\u2019s not God. Granted, the hero is following his conscience, but the film seems to make the conscience something that belongs to us<\/em>, rather than a nudge from God to give up what we see as our way <\/em>for something higher.<\/p>\n I shouldn\u2019t be too upset about that \u2014 Ridley Scott is an agnostic and I\u2019m sure the film wasn\u2019t written or guided by Christians, so I\u2019m glad the film turned out to be so thought-provoking. It\u2019s not innocent, however, of taking cheap shots at Christianity. Yes, it does <\/em>represent many of the ways Christianity has been abused, distorted, and misinterpreted, but its recommendation for a better way falls far short of the mark. In trying to come up with the One True Way, they hit all around the truth, and the empty space in the middle is the outline of Christ. Because, after all, no human being is capable of so much good that he can redeem the world and change human nature\u2026 no one except Christ.<\/p>\n If the film really grappled with the different claims of either religion, the audience might have to face the fact that the two belief systems aren\u2019t <\/em>reconcilable, that one makes claims that recommend certain behavior and consequences, and the other leads to entirely different behavior and consequences.<\/p>\n The film breaks it down like this:<\/p>\n Hey, I\u2019m happy to see that the film is asking us to put up our swords and relate to each other differently. But the tendency to suggest that the BEST man is one who puts aside religion altogether for some generalized morality, that is insufficient to address most of the deep questions that lead us toward religion in the first place.<\/p>\n Thus, Orlando Bloom\u2019s hero is the messiah of the story by recognizing that making war is bad, protecting people is good, and doing good deeds is a sacred path (minus all of that \u201cGod\u201d stuff). The religion he arrives at in the end does not involve prayer or submission to a Higher Authority. It is entirely secular. It has little or nothing to do with Christ.<\/p>\n And of course it couldn\u2019t. If it had anything to do with Christ, that would imply that there IS an authority. But no, we can\u2019t have that, because that leads other religions to want to destroy us. We must first and foremost adhere to the religion of tolerance, and keep our other religious convictions to ourselves. It\u2019s more important that we please each other than that we please God.<\/p>\n And what about the Muslims? The film paints them as people of honor and respect, for the most part. Oh, they have a few renegades who get what they have coming, but the movie carefully avoids showing us anything about Muslim culture that might make us question its foundational ideas. We are kept far far away from Muslim women, for example, so we don\u2019t have to wonder about how they\u2019re treated. (One Muslim woman appears, but she\u2019s abused by one of the Knights Templar, not by her own people.)<\/p>\n Overall, Kingdom of Heaven <\/em>is a well-made film, another fine example of Ridley Scott\u2019s stellar craft. It has strong performances from its cast of great actors (Bloom isn\u2019t bad either). I\u2019d especially point out David Thewlis, for an admirably restrained turn\u2026 finally, directors are rediscovering this great actor. It\u2019s great to see Jeremy Irons back in a role of authority and dignity (until the end, when his character abruptly disposes of that intelligence and strength). Eva Green is striking and surprisingly effective as the princess. (But of course, Bloom\u2019s character quickly disposes of any ethical hesitation in sleeping with this married woman.) And Brendan Gleeson is once again a ferocious, commanding screen presence.<\/p>\n Best of all is Ghassan Massoud as a magesterial Muslim warlord named Saladin; he steals the show whenever he\u2019s on screen.<\/p>\n Further, the film boasts Scott\u2019s typically dazzling cinematography. But one of the surprising disappointments is that this established master of adventures and epics would exhibit such a lack of creativity in the battle scenes \u2014 Scott basically clones dozens and dozens of shots from The Two Towers <\/em>and The Return of the King. <\/em><\/p>\n The greatest disappointment is that the storytellers seem to think the Muslim way and the Christian way are equally misguided, and that there is a secular path that trumps both of them. This makes it, ultimately, a hollow piece of cultural commentary.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I saw Ridley Scott\u2019s Kingdom of Heaven today. I\u2019ll write a review soon. But first, a few comments on how it fits into the trend of new \u201cspiritual\u201d films\u2026 Better to call it Kingdom of Tolerance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1051,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[1155,311,384],"class_list":["post-8322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journal","tag-kingdom-of-heaven","tag-ridley-scott","tag-tolerance-except-for-christians"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/em>
\nMy initial reaction to the movie was negative. But the more I think abou it (this post has been revised), I\u2019m glad Ridley Scott made the film. It gives us a context rich with provocation that will spur viewers to investigate all kinds of questions\u2026 and we should, <\/em> focus on those questions. Whenever the film tries to lean toward an answer, it fumbles around and comes up empty, despite its good intentions. But forgive that initial, ticked-off rant. While I\u2019m still dissatisfied, I\u2019m seeing some of the film\u2019s virtues more clearly now.<\/p>\n\n