The Rise and Fall of "Kingdom of Heaven"

Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is currently showing.

In an interview with Total Film, the director mentioned that there will also be a director's cut that runs for 4 hours and 10 minutes (250 minutes), while the theatrical release is 157 minutes long. This release strategy reminds me of "Kingdom of Heaven," which also has two versions: a 144-minute theatrical version and a 193-minute director's cut.

Which version is better? Different audiences may have different choices. But, I think if you get to know "Kingdom of Heaven," you may discover your own answer.

It is not exaggerating to say that "Kingdom of Heaven" is the most controversial film in Ridley Scott's career. When it was first released, it faced widespread criticism. Years later, it gradually gained a cult following, with some fans even considering it the most underrated epic classic after 2000. However, upon revisiting this "classic" recently, I notice many storytelling issues. After reevaluating it, I personally do not think it deserves this title.

A Disposable Film of 2005

What catches my attention about "Kingdom of Heaven" is its focus on the history of Jerusalem.

Around 1000 years ago, under the permission of the Roman Catholic Pope, feudal nobles and knights from Western Europe waged a religious war that lasted for nearly 200 years against what they considered to be pagan nations along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. From 1096 to 1291, they launched a total of nine attacks on Jerusalem in an attempt to reclaim the "Holy Land" from Muslim rule. Each of them wore a cross that symbolizes Christianity on their chests and arms, earning them the title of "crusader." The story of "Kingdom of Heaven" takes place before the start of the Third Crusade, when Jerusalem was under Christian control.

Even today, Jerusalem remains a place of ongoing conflict. In the Christian Bible, Jerusalem is the location of Jesus' suffering, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Jerusalem is the place where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to Heaven. The issue of Palestinian territories and the ownership of Jerusalem continue to divide Israel and Islamic nations.

Furthermore, most of the characters in the film are based on historical figures, with Professor Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University serving as the film's chief academic consultant.

With top-tier directors and historians coming together to tell the weighty history of Jerusalem, "Kingdom of Heaven" seemed poised to become a box office champion and strong contender for major film awards.

However, it missed the mark.

When the 144-minute version of "Kingdom of Heaven" was released in theaters, the majority of audiences (myself included) gave it negative reviews. The focus of this version is on the siege of the city, but behind the war scenes, it lacks a cohesive storyline and has underdeveloped characters with unclear motivations. For example, why will Balian, an ordinary blacksmith from France, murder a priest who steals his wife's cross and flee to Jerusalem? And how does he earn the trust of King Baldwin after arriving there, let alone possess the skills to create complex siege weapons? There is no explanation whatsoever. Another example is Queen Sibylla. The film does not account for why she always seems melancholic. Her presence serves little meaning beyond showcasing her beauty. It makes me wonder if this is truly a film by Scott. Do historians really need to be involved in a purely action-packed war film?

Overall, "Kingdom of Heaven" failed to live up to its potential. After the negative reception, this big-budget production, which cost US$130 million, only grossed less than US$50 million at the North American box office.

A Classic Film of 2007

Scott blames the failure of "Kingdom of Heaven" on its production studio, 20th Century Fox, for sacrificing artistry in favor of more screenings by cutting down the overall legnth of the film. So, after strong persistence from Scott and movie fans, the director's cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" was released in 2007, two years after the original version. Clocking in at a whopping 193 minutes, it added nearly an hour to the film. And that extra hour completely turned its reputation around. Some even consider "Kingdom of Heaven" to be Scott's best work to date.

After watching the director's cut, I realize that Scott's complaints about the studio are justified. The director's cut and theatrical version are two completely different movies.

I recall the countless criticisms of the theatrical version's excessive focus on the war, and the director's cut responds powerfully to that. War is not the main point of "Kingdom of Heaven" – it is the complexity of human nature in troubled times. In other words, the characters' motivations are fleshed out, making them complete individuals rather than mere backdrop to grand battles.

For example, Balian is not just an ordinary blacksmith. He is also a mechanical engineer who had previously designed and built siege machinery. As he puts it, "Help one king defeat another." Balian kills the priest not solely because he stole a cross, but also because of a long-planned political conspiracy in the region. He gains the trust of King Baldwin not only because his father was the King's teacher, but also because of his sense of justice and unwavering commitment to ideals, and not simply because of his love affair with the Queen as depicted in the theatrical version.

Queen Sibylla is no longer just a beautiful woman, but a person with complex emotions and identities. She is the woman that Balian falls in love with at first sight, the beautiful sister of King Baldwin tormented by leprosy, the self-loving and self-respecting wife of ambitious and arrogant Guy, the strong yet vulnerable mother of the young prince, an independent princess, and the Queen of the Holy City of Jerusalem. One scene that deeply moves me is when she, as a mother, learns that her son has contracted leprosy and will soon face the same fate as her brother Baldwin, who succumbed to the torments of the disease. The choice she makes is bold yet cowardly at the same time. She personally poisons her innocent and angelic son to death. As a result, Guy is crowned king and ultimately dooms Jerusalem to a path of no return.

Another addition to the director’s cut is the reflection on religion. In the theatrical version, content involving religion were all cut to avoid controversy and gain higher ticket sales. This seemed like the right decision, as not only did it not spark discussions among the Christians and Catholics, but it also received affirmation from the Muslims.

But after watching the extended version, I realize what was removed by Fox. It erased the film’s contemplation of religion, the role of churches in the historical event of the Crusades, the abuse of power by the clergy in front of the people, their cowardice in the face of strong enemies, the film’s dismissive attitude towards churches, and the original intention of the writer and director in designing the character of Balian.

Balian is a significant character because he exposes the lies about religion. He too is a faithful believer seeking redemption. On his journey to the Holy City, a priest chants to him as if he is performing hypnosis, "To kill an infidel, the pope has said, is not murder. It is the path to heaven." It is this religious ideology that guides the Crusades and anti-biblical events in the Bible's name. When Balian witnesses King Baldwin dismissing the Bishop of Jerusalem before his death, he realizes that the highest ruler of the Holy City does not believe in God. Finally, when "religion" stands against the people and drags them into the abyss of war, he says, "Which one is more holy? The wall? The mosque? The sepulcher? Who has claim? No one has claim!" It is exactly because Balian chooses the people over "religion" that further casualties are avoided.

Respect and belief in life, people, and peace come before any religion in this world. This should also reflect Scott's attitude towards and hope for today's Jerusalem and religious beliefs.

Indeed, it is a classic epic film.

Reevaluation in 2023

Lately, the conflict between Israel and Palestine reminds me of the brutal history of Jerusalem, so I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" once again.

And guess what? My perspective on the film changed once more!

This mainly stems from the oversimplification of the grand era portrayed in "Kingdom of Heaven" by the director.

Take, for instance, the character design of Balian. At first glance, his character seems well-developed, but once you strip away the historical context, you will realize he is actually a male version of the Mary Sue archetype.

Mary Sue refers to a type of female character frequently seen in novels who are usually ordinary and unremarkable, but suddenly becomes universally loved and invincible. Some classic examples are the female protagonists in "Fifty Shades of Grey" and "Twilight". The former is an ordinary female student who encounters a handsome CEO, while the latter is a regular high school student who falls in love with a charming vampire. Mary Sues rarely face obstacles during their journey of achieving their goals, and the element of "wish-fulfillment" in their characters is often criticized. The absence of failures in their lives translates to the lack of humanistic flavour, making it difficult for people to be interested in or resonate with them.

Moving on from this perspective, let's take a look at Balian in "Kingdom of Heaven" again. At the start, he is a down-and-out blacksmith in a French village. The moment he kills the priest, Godfrey–the Baron of Jerusalem who happens to be Balian's biological father–comes to his rescue. After Godfrey’s death, Balian conveniently inherits the title of the Baron. Next, he encounters a storm on his way to Jerusalem and becomes the sole survivor by sheer luck. Following that, he gains the love of Sibylla, the trust of King Baldwin, and even the admiration of Saladin, the leader of the Islamic army. Finally, he successfully protects the civilians of Jerusalem and earns the respect of everyone. This string of good fortune typically falls on Mary Sues. His smooth-sailing life undermines the audience's ability to relate to the character because, in reality, it is quite unlikely to happen.

While Sibylla is not exactly Mary Sue (whose life is a breeze), she still falls into some clichés. It seems that when shaping her character, the screenwriters focused primarily on her actions– the key factors that propel the story – rather than her personality. Her personality ultimately serves only to complement the events in the film. For example, the process of her falling in love with Balian is hastened to a simple exchange of glances. Moreover, during this period, her child seems non-existent as intended by the writers. When she becomes the Queen, her love for her child suddenly intensifies. Then, as planned by the writers, during the fall of Jerusalem, she becomes a cold-blooded woman who can kill her own child. I can sense the trauma she experiences with every setback, but I fail to perceive her complex character behind those traumas.

The hallmark of Scott's works is their grandeur, meticulous craftsmanship, and philosophical exploration of topics like human nature, war, religion, and even the origin of humanity (e.g."Prometheus"). On the contrary, character development tends to be suppressed and simplified. Sometimes, such characterizations help viewers understand more profound themes, like those of the Oscar-winning "Gladiator," as well as sci-fi classics like "Alien" and "Blade Runner." However, overly superficial portrayals of human nature make it difficult for viewers to resonate with them, as seen in less successful works like "Prometheus" and "Hannibal."

Joaquin Phoenix is a top-notch actor, and Scott is undoubtedly a top-tier director. Their collaboration in "Napoleon" is highly anticipated. At the same time, I believe we should not pay too much attention to current evaluations because people's perspectives evolve over time. The evolution of viewpoints stems from continuous progress, learning, and self-reflection. Thus, the same story can be understood differently in different eras.