User:BennyBroo/sandbox

Academic criticism
In the time since the film's release, scholars have offered analysis and criticisms through a lens situating Kingdom of Heaven within the context of contemporary international events and religious conflict, including: broad post-9/11 politics, neocolonialism, and Orientalism.

Post-9/11 politics
Theologian Dr. Matthew Richard Schlimm offers significant parallels to the conflict depicted within the film and the events immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Schlimm points out that President George W. Bush explicitly referred to America's military response after the attacks as a "crusade...[to] rid the world of the evildoers". Similarly, both Osama bin Laden and, later, Saddam Hussein framed themselves after Saladin.

Consequently, so as to avoid any and all connections between Saladin and the ideologies that the United States was combating before and during the film's release--mainly Jihadism and Islamic radicalism--the film mutes the desires of Saladin and other Muslim leaders to drive out Western and Christian influence and unite under Islam.

Messages of neocolonialism in the context of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Schlimm believes that, in an effort to handle the depiction of religious warfare as controversy-less as possible, especially regarding the portrayal of Muslims, Kingdom of Heaven instead elevates its positive depiction of Western "imperialism and colonization". Schlimm argues that "many of the frames in this movie closely align with how the Bush Administration sought to frame its military engagement in Iraq". This is accomplished through the depiction of Balian as "the benevolent, much needed Crusader," whose nobility and strength in battle come hand-in-hand with an unshakeable moral compass. President George W. Bush presented a similar framing of the United States' armed forces on the night of the first invasion of the War in Iraq: "The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military."

Schlimm cites two specific instances in the film that actively reinforce the positive role of the Western warrior in the Middle East. First, Balian is depicted setting a Muslim man free when he is offered as a slave, thus reinforcing Balian as a liberator in the inherently oppressive Middle Eastern culture. Schlimm also references a scene where Balian visits his land in Ibelin that he has inherited from his father. Lacking in water, Balian commands wells be built; water is found, and soon his land becomes "a virtual Garden of Eden". According to Schlimm, the trappings of neocolonialism run thick: "The movie tells us that this blacksmith from France is able to do far more with the land than Arabs ever could [...] The colonized are nevertheless grateful and excited about what Balian, their benevolent colonizer, has achieved." Schlimm argues that such a portrayal directly aligns with the framing of the United States' military involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with an emphasis on the liberation of the people and the extensive aid they were provided by the American military.

Orientalist ideology
Schlimm levies criticism against the film for its apparent indulgence in Orientalist ideology, where "'The Orient and the Oriental...become repetitious pseudo-incarnations of some great original (Christ, Europe, the West)..." According to Schlimm, Orientalist ideals function primarily through the depiction of Saladin, both personally and religiously. The Saladin of Kingdom of Heaven "embodies the Western ideal of segregating his personal faith from his public office...his faith has minimal effect on his political and military strategies. He could be a Western leader." The film also vastly skews Saladin's opinion of the religious and social significance of the city of Jerusalem:

"...(T)he historical Saladin is a leader who cares deeply for the sacred Islamic sites of Jerusalem and is even willing to go back on earlier vows for the sake of preserving the holy sites of his faith—hardly the type of person who would suggest, “Perhaps it would be better [if they were burned].” When the film depicts Saladin as hinting (even admitting) that Jerusalem may be worth “nothing,” it transforms this leader who historically cared about Jerusalem above all else into a figure much more understandable and much more comforting for Western viewers."

Additionally, as detailed more in the section on religious differences, Saladin functions very much as an embodiment of post-Christian religious practice. This depiction in that of itself is Orientalist in nature, as "(i)t uses, encapsulates, and manipulates one of Muslim’s most feared heroes, robbing him of his core beliefs and making him a mouthpiece for Western conviction".

Furthermore, Schlimm offers that this Orientalist discourse is very much a reaction to the political and social landscape in the post-9/11, War on Terror moment of the film's Summer 2005 release: "Portraying Islam as a reconfiguration of Western spirituality may curb hate crimes, but it also silences that faith’s voice in our world."

Detrimental handling of religious differences between Christianity and Islam
Schlimm contends that rather than accurately depicting the religious fervor of both Christians and Muslims during the Crusades, the film instead mirrors a modern, Western religious perspective. This is accomplished by depicting the primary admirable characters in the film--Balian and Saladin--as individuals embodying "post-Christian values"(a rejection of ritualism in favor of personal, yet skeptical, faith). Bailan, the Western Crusader, distances himself from the destructive religious fanaticism of firmly Christian warriors Guy and Reynald; instead, he aligns himself with the positive moral convictions that the Christian faith teaches, rather than adhering to strict religious structure.

Likewise, Saladin (who, as recorded by his biographer, declared: “I will follow the infidels and fight them until I die, or until no infidel is left on the face of this earth.”), is not the fiercely devoted Muslim warrior that history remembers him as. Rather, Schlimm labels the Saladin of Kingdom of Heaven as "a pseudo-incarnation of post-Christian religious belief," an individual who recognizes God but ultimately remains distant from a real embrace of faith.

However, historian John Aberth offers a different lens of criticism toward the film. He views how "Kingdom of Heaven treads warily around the character of Saladin" as a merited choice, citing Saladin's "contested" legacy among historians. Some believe the Saladin of the histories was a conqueror out for purely personal gain; others believe he was on a path to becoming the ultimate "mujahid", which culminated in his conquest of Jerusalem depicted in the film. Regardless, the film's portrayal of Saladin as "a cunning but gracious warrior whose religious motivations are almost entirely absent" is cause for Aberth to deem it "woefully out of step with how many modern Muslims view and value Saladin".