This documentary (on the history of Jerusalem) is broken down into 3 episodes: (1) "Well-Spring of Holiness" which begins with Jersualem's earliest Caanite origins and culminates at the time of Constantine the Great; (2) "Invasion Invasion Invasion" portrays Jerusalem starting in the 7th Century when the Muslims captured it until the Tartar devastation in the 13th Century and (3) "Reclaiming Zion" which begins after the Tartars up to the present day. Now, as far as the documentary is concerned, what troubled me to a degree was the manner in which the Jewish narrator/historian, Simon Sebag Montefiore, allowed what seemed to be a personal bias against Christianity to influence the direction of this film. For example, when narrating the portion about Jesus he seems unable to differentiate him from a few other people during this time who also claimed to be the messiah. It isn't so much what he said but how he said it and what he omitted. In any case, considering the influence Jesus clearly had upon the entire world it is quite clear that he was certainly different from anybody else during this time. But the narrator doesn't seem to understand why. He also never seems to miss an opportunity to mischaracterize Christians as either blood-thirsty crusaders or religious fanatics. Now, that is not to say that there weren't specific occasions which might have merited these characterizations. But I would like to call attention to the fact that his focus could have been more even-handed. To that end, he could have devoted more time to the history of Caanan and how the Hebrews ruthlessly took over possession of the land from the inhabitants at that time. It wasn't very pretty. But it was omitted. He also could have included how the early Christians were brutally persecuted by the Jews. But he was rather silent on that as well. Now, that is not to say that it is unusual for any normal person to look at a particular issue from the context of their own personal beliefs and experiences. But a good historian would show more restraint and objectivity. In that regard, I think his pro-Jewish sympathies got the better of him and it caused him to display casual indifference to both Christianity and (to a certain extent) Islam. In short, I think this documentary would have been better served if he had shown more respect for these two religions. If nothing else, that angle might have helped explain the passions that motivated their followers to act the way they did. Instead, his neglect caused this documentary to look dry and lifeless. For that reason I rate it as slightly below average.
