charliecrack

This film by Ridley Scott seeks to make sense of an incredibly complex period in medieval history. Rather than a black and white version of Muslim Christian relations,he seeks to show the complexity of the politics of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.Both parties are guilty of barbarism and surprizing sophistication in their dealings with one another.As Jerusalem is wrested between Muslims and Christians there is an astonishing empathy between them. Both know the importance of the Holy City to each other and both respect that.Saladin is portrayed brilliantly by the Sudanese born actor.I read the eminently readable "Jerusalem" by Hugh Montefiore who interestingly enough comes from a Sephardic Jewish family and this I felt filled in any gaps I may have had in the history of this period especially concerning the strange and romantic figure of Baldwin IV The Leper King of Jerusalem.The portrayal of the Knights Templar as the shock troops of the Crusaders eschewing the quasi mystical reputation that they were to achieve later on in their development was a nice touch.For those who can grasp the fanaticism of medieval religions and the vital importance of Jerusalem as the centre of the medieval world this film is a real treat.It is curious that the power of the story of the Crusades still haunts both Christian Europe and the Islamic Middle East, indeed Osama Bin Laden often considered American and British incursions into the Middle East to be Crusading.Ridley Scott never fails to satisfy in my opinion and though this film wasn't a box office success in America, it was in Europe and the Arab Middle East which is interesting.

What a film! I had read the book so was acquainted with the "Huxley" references.I was intrigued by the fact that Tom Ford was a fashion designer ( to be honest I had never heard of him) and now director of a film.I was pleasantly surprised, indeed more than that, amazed at his skill. The colouring of the film was exceptional: browns and blues, the sepias of the flashbacks.The clothes of Nicholas Hoult , the mohair sweater, in a pale beige contrasted with his blue eyes, a stroke of genius.The wall poster in the car park of the liquor commission of a pair of eyes, which were of course belonging to Sophia Loren. The chance meeting with the Spanish youth from Madrid who worn a James Dean outfit and was obviously a model rather than an actor.Julianne Moore was superb as a sixties rich dolly bird, all Green Onions and pop art dress. I really enjoyed this movie as much as I enjoyed the novella.Acting was superb, the cinematography a stroke of genius.

This film suffers from the usual shortcomings of films about "The British Raj":it ignores the stories of a whole swathe of ordinary British and Anglo-Indians between the ruling Raj and the new Indians.I have the greatest respect for the two main actresses, Jaffrey and Scaatchi but it was a poor script and plot.The caricature of an Anglo-Indian woman was such a racial stereotype it is clear that Merchant/Ivory did little to acquaint themselves with the Anglo-Indian community either in India or in England.The idea that this community was such a self-hating hybrid of the British is short sighted in the extreme.Also the fact that the majority of Anglo-Indians didn't live in South India but in central India and the North which were "British India" is a glaring inaccuracy.Also another fact that by 1954 the majority of Anglo-Indians had emigrated to other parts of the old Empire including England to make a new life as they felt that they didn't have a future in an Independent India.Cotton Mary perpetuates an unpleasant stereotype projected on this community by British and Indians alike during the previous 200 years of Imperial rule.The film was eventually removed from circulation through the protests of Anglo-Indians worldwide.All in all this film was unworthy of Merchant/Ivory, a great disappointment.