Kingdom of Heaven

[Hurin]

Any topic where someone feels that the subject gives them license to state unequivocally that one religion/culture is obviously "more evil" than another probably needs to go away, quickly.

Words into my mouth, I said the Christian Crusaders, not Christians in general. C'mon Hurin, you can do better than this. Might help if you pulled your heat out of AgentOne's ass ( ) so you could actually see what people are writing, instead of trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

I don't think it's any large stretch to say that someone who thinks one side was obviously and inarguably more evil than another back then is unlikely not to carry that un-nuanced position through to today's issues. In fact, It's quite the reverse. I'd say it's one's view towards the current world situation that is likely to color one's views of the crusades.

But actually, even to make a distinction back then between medieval Christians and medieval Christian crusaders is a distinction without a difference. The crusades were wildly popular in Europe. Especially during the early successes.

And as for arguing for the sake of arguing. . . if you actually thought you could say what you did in your intitial post and not set off some passions and discussion of some forbidden topics. . . I can't help you.

[GobotFool]

I really am waiting for this thread to get locked. Though while I can, I am glad to hear that Kingdom of heaven wasn't a islam bash fest. That is not to say I am glad to hear it is a christian bash fest which really isn't fair either. My personal feelings aside, this movie sounds so PC that I get the impression that the side people take about this movie tells more about that person than it does about the movie.

I had some concern this movie was going to be a glorification of the crusades, I think alot of people did from the previews, but from the sound of it it seems it stayed mostly center with a slightly anti-crusade message.

Alot of religions have been used to justify some pretty horrendous things, even Buddhism, the religion that in a few polls was voted the least evil religion, has been usurped and used for personal gain.

In defense of all people who have a tendancy to demonize or exhault one religion over another, alot of people have different experiences with religions, many good experiences and many bad. A good or bad personal experience or experiences will most certainly skew particular peoples perspectives for or against a religion. I've had positive and negative experiences with several religions as my family is a mix of many different faiths. Mostly varients of western religions, but still you would be suprised by the variety of ideas that one finds among these denominations that share the same text. Anyway, alot of people come to the table with different experiential baggage, so I can't condemn people for their bias. No one lacks bias, I don't care if certain people think they don't have a bias, people who say they don' are lying to themselves and the world. That said, people ought to try and listen to things outside their narrow view of the world. Perhaps the problem I have reading this thread is that, despite a fair number of fairly level headed posts (you can behave in a level headed manner and still stick to your perspective) is I see a strong level of inability to respectfully have a conversation without lowering oneself to name calling. This is the main reason I don't really talk to any of my highly polemic family members any more, and I have em on both left and right sides.

Edited May 8, 2005 by GobotFool

[bsu legato]

Jeeze...can a mod kindly make like Old Yeller and put a bullet into this thread?

[drifand]

Had a few good laffs at the movie:

- The overly fervent (un-named) crusader's rants whenever Tiberius or Balian tried to reason for peace: 'God WILLS it!' His facial expression was a hoot. Every time!

- Balian, a blacksmith for most of his life, suddenly gains the wisdom of farmers and masterminds the construction of a well and aqueducts to benefit 'his' people. Riiiight ...

- Balian, once again, suddenly possesses master seige-warfare expertise and supervises the range caliberation of the city's defense catapults before Saladin's attack.

- The cowardly priest's (?) outburst just before Balian went to ask for surrender terms with Saladin: "Convert first! Repent later!"

- Victorious Saladin in the Jerusalem palace, respectfully placing a fallen cross back upright on a table with a sagely expression. (Groan)

Unreal. Unbelieveable. Entertaining. :-)

[Hurin]

But I suppose if the Native American's rose up and wanted North America back, you'd willingly give up your homes...?

Of course not. Because I accept that all cultures and nations are guilty of usurping land from others. I just don't selectively direct my outrage towards the West.

Does that mean that if Native Americans started strapping bombs and blowing themselves up in shopping malls, you can't morally fault them anymore then the white people in the shopping mall?

If you do, isn't that taking the line that 'its ok to do that 200-300 years ago, but we are all civilised now, so its wrong to do it now.

My point is that you can't say one side is "good" or "evil" based on who "originally" lived some place. Nor is an "aggressor" always the "bad guy". . . since the agressor in this battle/war may be trying to redress a grievance from a prior war where they were not the aggressor.

And yes, in many cases, I think certain peoples need to "get over it" and move on like so many friggin' other peoples have done throughout time (and as millions of people did in the wake of WWII). The difference is that in this day and age, we have instituations in place to perpetuate "permanent refugee" status for these peoples as welfare states beholden to the UN and the world community for their existence. Where, in the past, displaced peoples would either move on (and away) or cease to exist.

As George F. Will said rather well: What happened to the Native Americans was tragic and cannot be seen as anything else. Yet, it is also tinged with innevitability. What happened to the native americans would have happened to them no matter what upperwardly mobile, populous, technologically advanced culture they came into contact with. They happened to come into contact with Western European settlers. But few seriously think that things would have turned out differently had it been another (equally populous, technologically advanced) culture that first made contact with North America. So, should Americans feel particularly guilty about what happened to the Native Americans? Well, if history is any guide. . . no (though we still do). What happened to the Native Americans was no different than what has happened to cultures throughout time.

The difference is that, recently, we've had democratic nations on the planet that allow themselves to actually hold themselves to a higher standard (even though we regularly fall short). So, yes, there is a sense that we are "more civilized" now. But, in reality, we're not. . . we still engage in the same behavior. The only difference is that we now have entire portions of our population devoted to calling us evil for doing so. Indeed, no nation on the planet spends as much time and resources raising its children to despise their own country than the USofA.

Again, what happened to the Native Americans was a tragedy. The way they were treated is shameful. But in a world full of sinful nations, I'm not sure who gets to cast the first stone. I really can't see it turning out any other way no matter who came across the North American continent first.

H

[Hurin]

In defense of all people who have a tendancy to demonize or exhault one religion over another, alot of people have different experiences with religions, many good experiences and many bad.

Actually, I'm not particularly religious, but I've found that peope have a very presentist view of religion and its role in society throughout history. Because there seems so little need for it in our present society, and scandals and abuse make so much news nowadays in our current culture, we tend to project our current views towards religion onto religion in the past.

We see here and there abuses of religion. . . and we totally overlook the good that it has inspired and been responsible for throughout history.

I simply question the judgement of someone who dismisses religion as a "net evil." I don't think a serious look at history justifies this. For every perversion of faith, there are an infinite number of examples of kindness and compassion.

Again, I'm actually relatively agnostic. . . but the anti-religious atmosphere sweeping the Western world is somewhat distressing to me.

No one lacks bias, I don't care if certain people think they don't have a bias, people who say they don' are lying to themselves and the world.

I'm not sure you're addressing me here. But, for my part, I'm sure I appear biased to some (I hope so, since I am!). And I've argued on these very boards that all people are biased. I accept that I am biased. However, I also think that my arguments are based on a pretty broad understanding of history (my degree helps!) and the issues involved.

H

[GobotFool]

Actually Hurin, I really wasn't adressing you in any specific way. BTW I find peoples tendancy to only think in good and evil even more distressing than all the anti-religious sentiment (though the whole religion is evil bit is probably caught up in it). I'm not particularly religious myself, and to be honest I don't care how most other people feel as long as I don't get it rubbed in my face.

Though, I have to ask, did you groan to when you saw this thread pop up, knowing that a lil flame war was most certainly gonna be the result?

Edited May 8, 2005 by GobotFool

[GobotFool]

In defense of all people who have a tendancy to demonize or exhault one religion over another, alot of people have different experiences with religions, many good experiences and many bad.

We see here and there abuses of religion. . . and we totally overlook the good that it has inspired and been responsible for throughout history.

Well, I was offering defense for both demonizers and exhaulters. I am of the school of thought that religion is a two edged sword and can be harmful and benificial, it can justify some horrid things (Like well, a holy war, Crusade or Jihad), but then it can give people hope and drive them to commit great acts of charity. (Look at Mother Terisa, Ghandi)

I am often wary of religion but I hope my comments did no come off as I am a person who feels all religion (western, eastern or middle eastern) is absolute evil.

Personally, I think alot of people are disapointed with religion, and that disapointment often turns to hate, but in many ways by hating something, people are partaking in the same thing alot of people accuse certain christian groups of being. Lets be honest some groups live up to the sterotype, but again, to take a few groups (and or individuals) as the total representation of a whole is foolish. That would be like saying, these few catholic priests are pediphiles, thus all catholic priests are pediphiles. Even as a non-practicing catholic, I am highly offended by all the negative sterotypes of the religion I was raised under that have popped up. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, and I always try and stay critical of relgion, but at times people often go so far overboard with their anti-relgion kick that I have to stand back and say, woah now. You probably had a bad experience, and I can't fix that, but please, don't make sweeping assumptions about a whole group because of a few a-holes.

Again, I agree with alot of what you say in regard to this Hurin, I was just commenting on how peoples experinces will color their views, and my opinion that we have to be aware that many people have had very different experiences that result in their personal bias. BTW, I never thought you were the kind of guy who would deny his bias.

Edited May 8, 2005 by GobotFool

[Mislovrit]

GobotFool imho one needs to wary of ideologies whether it is religious, philosophical, political and so on.

[GobotFool]

GobotFool imho one needs to wary of ideologies whether it is religious, philosophical, political and so on.

I wholely agree, still, we all have ideologies, they are not bad things, hell you don't even have to be wholely flexible with them, what is needed though is a willingness to listen, offer ones arguments, listen to the opositions, answer in a fairly intelligent way instead of responding with the standard "Nyah your a poo head". Perhaps my biggest problem today is that alot of people seem to have the idea that because people disagree with them those people must hate them. Also friendly chat does not always mean agreement. A table full of head nodders gets really boring fast

The only reason I was discussing my feelings on religious ideology with so much verbosity was because it was one of the primary topics of this thread.

Edited May 8, 2005 by GobotFool

[Akilae]

A movie about Chengis Khan would never work without portraying the Mongols as the "bad" guys... although a movie about Temuchin would work. Subtle difference, but entirely different way to portray the man. Unfortunately, "Temuchin" doesn't inspire the imaginations of countless orientalists.

I'd love to see a movie about the Horde that terrorized Asia and Eastern Europe, and turned the Russians into a quivering mass of xenophobes.

[kalvasflam]

The movie was not too bad for a hollywood piece of entertainment. After all, you don't really expect historical accuracy from a movie like this.

I wish they could've done the battle at the Horns of Hattin in much more dramatic fashion, although in reality, Saladin pretty much killed the idiot crusader forces by taking command of the sole source of water in the area. But the movie had to portray at least one Christian as a good guy. And Bloom's character was an idiot, all he had to do was say yes and he could've had it all, not to mention spare the war.

Historically, Saladin was a pretty fair guy, sure, he was a zealot in his own right, but the Muslims during that era was the most sophisticated around, the envy of the world if you will. Saladin was a good strategist, and was known just as much for his charity as his warrior spirit. I don't actually recall him making a deal with the Christian defenders, but generally said when Jerusalm was under Muslim rule but all faiths were welcome, something the movie didn't really mention.

What really took the Muslims down and gave Europe such a jumpstart into the age of enlightenment was the Mongols. They ripped through the middle east like a force of nature. They were an entirely different story. Nobody stopped the Mongols except themselves. For all practical purposes, the Mongols used tactics that were almost a millenia ahead of their time, mobile tactics, and if you really want to call it that, they used essentially blitzkreig tactics. It was all pretty interesting from a military prespective. Saladin, had he been alive probably couldn't have stopped the Mongols, heck, the WWII generals got a lot of their inspirations from what the Mongols did. The reason that the Mongols eventually got reduced to the dustbin of history was due to cultrual reasons rather than anything else. They were co-opted by all the cultures they conquered, and all their own internal wars. The only real fight they lost to the outsiders was Aun Jit, think I spelled that right, and that's because they were really really outnumbered by the Mamelukes.

I think the Muslims are probably still sore at the Mongols about the stuff that happened a thousand years ago.... it set them back by a lot.

[Major Johnathan]

Speaking of Ridley Scott, anybody like Black Rain? That's one of my favorite movies ever. Doesn't get much attention, but it's great. Ken Takakura (Masahiro Masamoto of the Osaka prefectural Police )steals the show, but everyone is good in it.

Sadly, i think a lot of people over look it because it's too 'Japanese' or too 'foreign' so it never got much good press, which is why I liked it. That was made in 1989 I think... can't believe how long ago that was, that movie still seems 'new' to me.

[Mr March]

I really enjoyed Black Rain actually. It was a great story for the time and I felt it revealed a much broader and more thoughtful depiction of the Japanese, especially for a Hollywood movie. I also liked how both cultures, through the relationship of Nick and Masahiro's characters, taught something to the other. I was wondering if a special edition DVD was ever going to come out.

My three favorite Ridley Scott films are Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator, all of which would rank very high on a list of all time personal favorites. What can I say, the guy makes good films

[Major Johnathan]

What really took the Muslims down and gave Europe such a jumpstart into the age of enlightenment was the Mongols. They ripped through the middle east like a force of nature. They were an entirely different story. Nobody stopped the Mongols except themselves. For all practical purposes, the Mongols used tactics that were almost a millenia ahead of their time, mobile tactics, and if you really want to call it that, they used essentially blitzkreig tactics. It was all pretty interesting from a military prespective. Saladin, had he been alive probably couldn't have stopped the Mongols, heck, the WWII generals got a lot of their inspirations from what the Mongols did. The reason that the Mongols eventually got reduced to the dustbin of history was due to cultrual reasons rather than anything else. They were co-opted by all the cultures they conquered, and all their own internal wars. The only real fight they lost to the outsiders was Aun Jit, think I spelled that right, and that's because they were really really outnumbered by the Mamelukes.

I think the Muslims are probably still sore at the Mongols about the stuff that happened a thousand years ago.... it set them back by a lot.

Well stated. I think the Mongols and Ghenghis are the least understood or appreciated topic in history. They accelerated history, forced East and West together. It was because of the Mongols that Marco Polo was sent to China, his stories inspired Europe to begin sending explorers East, and eventually leads to the discovery of the America's. The Mongols kick started the 'Global economy' as we know it today.

I think because they didn't invade most of Western Europe, they get less attention in the West generally. But the Mongols didn't bother taking Western Europe because it was the least developed, least wealthy civilization they encountered.(compared with China,India,the Muslim world etc.)

The Arab and Persian civilizations were much more advanced, wealthy, powerful than Europe at the time. Thus, Europe/Christianity were incredibly lucky that when they sent the Crusades the Muslim world was severely preoccupied with the Mongols. Otherwise, Europe may well have turned into an Islamic continent.

Nearly every major civilization was greatly impacted by the Mongols.

All hail Ghenghis!

[EXO]

I really enjoyed Black Rain actually. It was a great story for the time and I felt it revealed a much broader and more thoughtful depiction of the Japanese, especially for a Hollywood movie. I also liked how both cultures, through the relationship of Nick and Masahiro's characters, taught something to the other. I was wondering if a special edition DVD was ever going to come out.

My three favorite Ridley Scott films are Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator, all of which would rank very high on a list of all time personal favorites. What can I say, the guy makes good films

I've seen about everything the guy did after The Duellists... the only one I've missed out on is Matchstick Men, due to my aversion for post Con Air Nick Cage. Black Rain is one of my favorite Ridley Scott movies. Even the ones that I like the least are actually good films like 1492 and White Squall. I consider Legend to be the perfect Fairy Tale movie and I'm a huge fan of Tim Curry's Darkness. The one film I prefer not to watch again is probably Hannibal. But I'm just one of those that believes that they should have left that property alone.

[EXO]

BTW... how awesome would that German Crusader be in the beginning of the film as The Mighty Thor?

[Major Johnathan]

I really enjoyed Black Rain actually. It was a great story for the time and I felt it revealed a much broader and more thoughtful depiction of the Japanese, especially for a Hollywood movie. I also liked how both cultures, through the relationship of Nick and Masahiro's characters, taught something to the other. I was wondering if a special edition DVD was ever going to come out.

My feelings exactly. It's a miracle Black Rain was made. That was at the height of the anti-Japanese sentiment in America because of the trade deficit. I remember common sites on the news of Union Auto worker sledge hammering Mitsubishi's for a photo-op and everyone freaking out becuase Japan was going to literally buy America. (these days China's trade deficit with the U.S. dwarfs Japan's of the 1980's and China is underwriting American debt... and no one seems nearly as upset as when Japan was doing the same...)

Anyway, I give Ridley Scott and Michael Douglas great credit for making Black Rain, it was their names that got it made in spite of Hollywood and in spite of the mood of the country(America) at the time.

As far as I know there is no speical edition DVD. I'd love to see some documentaries/interviews about it, maybe even some deleted scenes... One thing I know is the actor who played Sato Koji(Yakuza bad-ass) died of a rare cancer (I think) shortly after Black Rain was released. He was well known in Japan and BR was his first break in a 'Hollywood' film, which was a big deal for him. It's too bad, he was great as Sato.

[EXO]

My feelings exactly. It's a miracle Black Rain was made. That was at the height of the anti-Japanese sentiment in America because of the trade deficit. I remember common sites on the news of Union Auto worker sledge hammering Mitsubishi's for a photo-op and everyone freaking out becuase Japan was going to literally buy America. (these days China's trade deficit with the U.S. dwarfs Japan's of the 1980's and China is underwriting American debt... and no one seems nearly as upset as when Japan was doing the same...)

But they made Gung Ho 3 years prior...

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I think because they didn't invade most of Western Europe, they get less attention in the West generally. But the Mongols didn't bother taking Western Europe because it was the least developed, least wealthy civilization they encountered.(compared with China,India,the Muslim world etc.)

The Arab and Persian civilizations were much more advanced, wealthy, powerful than Europe at the time. Thus, Europe/Christianity were incredibly lucky that when they sent the Crusades the Muslim world was severely preoccupied with the Mongols. Otherwise, Europe may well have turned into an Islamic continent.

I don't think its the fact that western europe was not 'interesting enough' that saved them. The Mongols even went as far as Java and that was much less developed and interesting then Europe. Western Europe was just 'at the end of the map'. It would have gone down if the Khan didn't die.

[Guest Bromgrev]

My three favorite Ridley Scott films are Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator, all of which would rank very high on a list of all time personal favorites. What can I say, the guy makes good films

Hey, Bladerunner - number one film of all time! Yeah, Ridley's got the 'X' factor. Black Rain was very entertaining, too. But I'm forever going to pretend he had nothing to do with Titanic ...

I'll have to see KoH, now, if only to see what could get an uninvolved group like American MW'ers so hot under the collar.