A Kingdom of Conscience

I want to take a moment and talk about something other than sports. My buddy John-O has done some very good film critiques and reviews on here, and I wanted to do something along that line. However, I will not be talking about a new movie, but one that has been out for a couple years now. That movie is Kingdom of Heaven. More precisely, the Director's Cut of Kingdom which you can buy at your local DVD store, and is a completely different movie than what was seen in theatres.

As the 4 of you that may have looked at my blog might have noticed, I have a quote from the film as my little intro line. You may have wondered why I chose this movie. After all, it was widely considered a flop. The most press it received was the scathing attacks on its "political" views and such. To be totally honest with you, I was somewhat disappointed with the theatrical release as well. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott, and was quite excited to see his next, great, epic action film (after Gladiator of coarse). However, I think this was one reason for my disappointment. I went into this with the wrong hopes, and this was due in large part to the studios marketing of the film.

The studio did not at all like Ridley's original cut of the film. They felt it was too long, too slow, too boring. They wanted another Gladiator. They made Ridley cut over an hour out of the film and marketed it as the summers first big action blockbuster. The problem is, this is not what it is, nor what it was ever meant to be. What the film was supposed to be was a great story about some very interesting characters during a period of the crusades. It was never meant to create the action/adventure buzz that Gladiator did. It was never meant to say who was good and who was evil, or right and wrong during this long, huge battle for Jerusalem. It was meant to be a historical story, with one man's point of view, and a dramatized tale, involving real historical characters, to give people some information about a time period that most know very little about.

I have recently become a huge fan of the History Chanel and was lucky enough to watch several documentaries about the Templar Knights and others from this time period. Having seen these shows and learned the truth, as far as scholars know it, about these men and this time period, I felt that much more prepared to watch and understand Kingdom then when I saw it in the theatres back in 2005.

The directors cut starts out with Ridley explaining the differences between this cut and the theatrical version and why they are so different. He, to the extent he can without being black-balled, rips 20th Century Fox for forcing him to release a movie that was not at all what he set out to make. (On the special features discs there is a feature length documentary about the making of Kingdom from start to finish in which he explains that he thought he had proved his abilities enough to have them trust him, which is why he holds a certain bitterness towards Fox even to this day).

I do not want to give a blow by blow account of the film, so I will more focus on the major differences between the directors cut and the theatrical cut. While the basic arch of Balian, (Orlando Bloom - the lead character) and the other main characters is the same, there are a great deal more details, explanations, and layers given to them and their stories. You learn a great deal more about Balian's past. You learn more about the King's sister, Sibilla (Eva Green) as well as many other main characters.

I don't think I can stress enough how much more information you get in the Director's Cut. One of the things that the theatrical was criticized for was the lack of story flow. It seemed to jump around a lot. There was never a nice flow to it. It always seemed that there were things missing from the story, or from a certain scene. This second version is how it was originally meant to be. The story actually makes sense. You understand why certain characters act certain ways. You understand why a certain moment is important. You understand all that has taken place leading up to the only sure villain, and Sibilla's husband Guy de Lusignan, taking the thrown after the king's death. In fact, this is part of the main sub-story that was removed.

That sub-story is that Sibilla has a son, and by the rightful succession of things in those times, he would take the thrown after the king, King Baldwin who by the way was a leper, passed on. However, he does not for a reason I will let you discover when you watch the Director's Cut. In the theatrical version, Guy is simply given the thrown. You are left wondering why, or even how this happens.

Another main story segment that is left out, or not explained is what really happens to our main characters after all this. In the theatrical version there is simply an end, with what seems like no real rhyme or reason. However, in the Director's Cut, you get much more detail into how things really finished for Balian, Sibilla, Guy and others.

There are also longer battle scenes, although they do not add any new ultra exciting sequences or anything. You see more of the build up to the battles as well as the strategies of the Muslims and the Christians once the battle begins.

You spend more time getting to know King Baldwin and the Muslim leader, Saladin. You begin to understand why they have so much respect for each other as adversary's and leaders. You see their compassion as well as their devotion to their beliefs.

I hope that those of you that saw the original version and didn't like it will be be willing to give it another chance. For those of you that have not seen it at all, I would recommend watching the Director's Cut first, then, if you choose, watching the theatrical to see what I am talking about. I promise you, you will not have the same disappointment that most had when walking out of the theatre. You may even sit back and realize that this was a wonderful movie that did not get it's fair shake because of the short sightedness of some people in suits with very little film knowledge.