Les croisades

The first part of the film is excellent with only credits to the sustained grand cinematography with constantly impressing settings and great acting, showing all the best of what made Cecil B. DeMille the greatest director of epics in Hollywood. The second part is ridiculous, a very liberal rewriting of history, the script writers using it lavishly to construe their own fancies, resulting in a monumental soap opera. Loretta Young is the star of the film, constantly bewitching as Berengaria, and actually living up to her real legendary beauty - her beautiful legendary hair, very much emhanced in the film, has sometimes been confused with the constellation "Berenice's hair", while Berengaria couldn't have been far from it. Henry Wilcoxon also makes a Richard Lionheart with credibility enough, he actually was like that in reality, outragesously insolent, politically impossible for his lack of realism and reliability, a great romantic but no good as a husband, and a hopelessly foolhardy daredevil. Here of course he is made more ideal, as Hollywood always did in the 30s, and you forgive the gross distortions of history in the second part because of his charming chivalry. The film is good but not one of DeMille's best, but it is impressing enough, and the first part, until the ridiculous Saladin-Berengaria affair gets started, is among the best of DeMille's works.

The production values of this picture are excellent. You can tell from the sets and costumes a lot of money was spent. The great weakness of this film is the script and acting technique. The script is straight 19th century maudlin melodrama. Unfortunately, the acting technique is the same. Lines are delivered in a stilted, formal manner common to the stage of an earlier era instead of the more natural technique we are accustomed to seeing in film today. The 30's was indeed a transition period in acting technique: the over wrought melodramatic technique of the silent pictures and stage in the early thirties to the natural technique finally adopted in the late 30's. Of course, the plot itself is implausibly melodramatic "love conquers all" for "world peace" kind of thing. Still, for a film student its still worth watching for the fine directing.

In his autobiography, C. B. Demille indicated that he found the greatest compliment ever given to the film was during an IRS audit. The agent doing the audit was astonished that a film that good didn't make any money.

The historian and author Harold Lamb was instrumental in the scripting. Demille wanted the flavor of the Crusades in the one film, so The Hermit was used to outline the cause of the Crusades, and was used to "compress" the timeline to the Third Crusade. He also wanted to show that Saladin was as "knightly" as any of the Crusaders.

The film provides spectacle throughout, from ceremonies to battles, but that was Demille's style. The political intrigue in the background was more pronounced in this film than behind-the-scenes activities in . other Demille films, but that touch may have been Mr. Lamb's.

I first saw this on television, many years ago, by accident. It wasn't scheduled, but I happened to tune in to it when it started. It caught my attention, and I was hooked. It's one of his better films. It's also an interesting contrast to Kingdom of Heaven.

The name De Mille evokes big sets, big costumes and bigger action and Crusades was his follow up to his earlier take on Christian oration from the scandalous - in a good way - Sign of the cross. Henry Wilcoxson, his Marc Anthony of Cleopatra and the always beautiful Loretta Young team up in this extravagant epic. King Richard the Lionheart is not a Christian and is not faithful to the ways of the sign of the cross but to escape a forced marriage he signs up for the Crusades to free the holy city of Jerusalem. Of course, there is scheming behind his back to seize his throne while he is gone. Along the way he trades for a wife, Loretta and haggles and argues with his other European leaders. Now, it has often not be said for it is almost as if De Mille build big sets and big stories to tell little moments for all his excess, his movies are ridiculously dialogue driven, even by the standards of the other expensive blockbuster-type movies made back then. De Mille loved dialogue scenes and focusing on character. Very strange. And this movie is really a politics and character movie as the future of Europe is argued and royal pompous exposed. The action sequences are obvious studio sets but well shot. The final moments have good heart that is not forced but earned. Thus, is this a good movie. It is hard to say because for every good scene there is a juvenile scene obviously put in to satiate the masses. Good direction though, very good direction. That said, Crusades lost money when first released, if you only look at its Domestic boxoffice rentals but was the biggest grossing movie of its year.

Cecil B. DeMille's spectacles were mostly bound to America and Americans for most of the silent film period into the early talkies. His exceptions were the original "Ten Commandments" (but there was a modern story set in America as well as the tale of Moses), and "King of Kings" where he told the story of Jesus's Ministry. Then, in 1933, he decided to do movies that dealt with the history of the ancient world. First came "Sign of the Cross" in 1933 and then "Cleopatra" in 1934. Both were in the Roman Empire, and both allowed DeMille ample scope to be lascivious and tantalizing about sex, and yet be moralistic as well (especially in "Sign of the Cross"). Both had Claudette Colbert in them in the female lead (shared in "Sign of the Cross" with Elissa Landi). "Sign" had Charles Laughton and Frederic March in the leads. But "Cleopatra" only had Henry Wilcoxon and Warren Williams as the leads. Still both films were very successful.

DeMille seems to have planned to tap European and Middle Eastern history for awhile. His next historical pageant is "The Crusades" which, while an entertaining film (none of his films are less than entertaining) is not as good as the first two. It is actually telling the story of the Third Crusade of 1190 - 92, and (although lauded in some of these comments as being historically accurate) it doesn't really go into it too well.

The third crusade was led by Richard the Lion Hearted (King Richard I of England), King Philippe Augustus of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarosa. Now the movie does show Philippe at the initial planning stages, and Richard soon getting involve. But aside from an occasional mention of Barbarosa, and one or two brief glimpses of an actor as the Emperor, his character is never developed. Frederick Barbarosa was a lead player in this crusade, and he drowned trying to ford a stream during the early part of it. This was a real tragedy for the European invaders, as Frederick had been umpiring the constant arguments between Philippe and Richard (neither of whom liked each other). None of that is in the film.

To fully appreciate this film (flaws and all) watch it first after seeing "Becket" and then "The Lion in Winter". Those two films tell the story of Richard Plantagenet's daddy and mommy, Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry II had built up his kingdom and power, despite problems from his old friend Thomas a'Becket. Most of the power was due to the inheritance of Eleanor in France, which was her dowry. Eleanor had been Queen of France briefly, but divorced King Louis and took her property with her. Henry was in a very good position to dominate King Louis and his son Philippe. But (from "The Lion in Winter") you will remember that Philippe tells off Henry that time is on his side - Henry is going to die soon, and Philippe is young. Philippe was also very sly. He was more interested in getting Richard into the Crusade so to weaken the English government, and allow Philippe to make incursions into Eleanor's power base. And it worked like a charm. Once Barbarosa was dead, Philippe took advantage of the first argument with Richard to take his men back to France. Soon he was in touch with Richard's brother, Prince John, who was regent for the king. John soon makes arrangements to keep Richard from ever coming home again.

At this point I'd suggest you see "The Adventures of Robin Hood" followed by "Robin and Marion" to see the return of Richard and the end of his lamentably bad reign.

DeMille hints at the political skulduggery. Note the business between Conrad of Montsarrat (the potential King of Jerusalem) and John. But John is made to be the mainspring of these conspiracies. That he was involved there is not doubt, but Philippe was the real key to them.

There is also another issue, touched on in "The Lion In Winter" but dropped here - DeMille would never have discussed it in the context of a hero. Richard I was gay. His marriage to Berengaria was not a love match (although made one here and in the later film "King Richard and the Crusaders" based on Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman"). So on that part the film is not accurate.

The battle for Acre was very bloody, but the worst part of it (which Arab historians have bristled about for centuries - British ones tended to ignore it) were the massacres of Arab (and Jewish) citizens at Acre. Somewhere over 30,000 (at least) were killed. This atrocity was sort of dropped from the movie.

The acting is good, and some of the scenes quite fascinating: the marriage by proxy of Berengaria and Richard (represented by his friend the minstrel Blondel); The literal horse (or cattle) trading by the King of Navarre for his daughter to get married is funny. Especially moving is a scene where Richard sees his old friend, the blacksmith, die after a fight with the Saracens.

"The Crusades" was a box office flop. DeMille (for the next 15 years) made films about American History, beginning with "The Plainsman". Only in 1949 did the old world beckon again with "Samson and Delilah". And his final masterpiece, the second "Ten Commandments", would be his picture of ancient Egypt.