text:
Today�s Prayer Focus
also known as "Cennetin krallığı," "Cruzada," "Dangaus karalystė," "Debesu valstība," "El reino de los cielos," "Kingdom of Heaven - Taivas maan päällä," "Königreich der Himmel," See more »
"Kraljevstvo nebesko," "Království nebeské," "Královstvo nebeské," "Królestwo niebieskie," "Le crociate - Kingdom of Heaven," "Le royaume des cieux," "Königreich der Himmel," "Mennyei királyság," "Nebeško kraljestvo," "Regatul Cerului," "Reino dos Céus," "Swarg ka pradesh," "Taevane kuningriik," "Taivas maan päällä," "The Crusades," "To vasileio ton ouranon," "Το βασίλειο των ουρανών," "Небеско краљевство," "Небесно царство," "Царство небесне," "Царство небесное," "キングダム・オブ・ヘブン," "王者天下"
MPA Rating: for strong violence and epic warfare.
Reviewed by: Michael Karounos
Moral Rating:
Extremely Offensive
Moviemaking Quality:
War Action Adventure Romance Drama
Year of Release:
USA Release:
May 6, 2005 (wide release)
Relevant Issues
About Biblical problems with Roman Catholicism
An open letter to Roman Catholics
What issues often separate Roman Catholics from God? Answer
Personal testimonies of former devout Roman Catholics
Former priest, Richard Bennett
Former nun, Mary Ann Pakiz
Former altar boy, Stan Weber ("Falling In Love with the Biblical Jesus")
QUIZ—Catholicism and Protestantism.
Do you think like a Protestant or a Catholic?
To better understand the worldview of the creator's of this film, read our INTERVIEW with actor Orlando Bloom and director Ridley Scott
GOD—How can we know there's a God? Answer
ISLAM—What is Islam? What do muslims believe? Answer
RELIGION—Aren't all religions basically the same? Answer
With so many denominations and religions, how can I decide which are true and which are false? Answer
BIBLE—How do we know the Bible is true? Answer
Is the Bible truth or tabloid? Answer
About Jerusalem
GOD—A skeptic asks: "Why should any one have to accept ancient hearsay as evidence for the existence of a god? If Jesus is who he said he was, then he shouldn't have any problem personally convincing me of that fact, especially considering the penalty with which he is supposedly ready to zap anyone who doesn't believe. In fact, I'd say, all things considered, he is a twisted monster for not doing just that." Response
GOSPEL—Does Christianity need to develop a NEW gospel adapted to today's world? Answer
SUFFERING—If there is a God, why does He allow innocent people to suffer? Answer
SUFFERING—Does God feel our pain? Answer
EVIL AND BAD—The Origin of bad—How did bad things come about? Answer
Featuring Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons, Eva Green
Director Ridley Scott—"The Last Duel"
Distributor 20th Century Studios, a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Studios, a division of The Walt Disney Company
"The Kingdom of Heaven" is not as anti-Christian as I feared and not as good an action move as I had hoped. The criticisms it has received—the miscasting of Orlando Bloom, the blatant anti-clericalism, the pretentious speeches—are, sadly, well-deserved. Aristotle famously observed that in drama "action reveals character." Unfortunately, director Ridley Scott channels Ayn Rand and tries to reveal character through political speeches. Not surprisingly, he succeeds in revealing the viewer's boredom instead.
The plot concerns the third of eight crusades to the Holy Lands performed in the years roughly between 1095 and 1291 A.D. The opening titles tell us that the year is exactly 1184 and that "Europe is in a state of repression and poverty." The observant viewer can discern this even without the helpful description because everything European is dirty, shabby, and ragged. This includes not just the peasantry, but also the blasphemous priests and rapacious noblemen who, having plundered the Middle East for gold, frankincense, and myrrh, nonetheless returned looking like they'd been on a three year long drunk.
Meanwhile, everything Arabic is bed-bath-and-beyond beautiful. The Saracens have nicely coiffed hair, neatly trimmed beards, and are dressed to the nines in special dust-resistant robes with intricate embroidery. Judging by the difference in clothing, I'm confident the Catholic Church almost certainly went to war just to capture the Muslim robes. The rags the priests wear are an absolute indictment of Christian tailors.
The movie has no objectionable nudity, blasphemy, profanity, or nuance. The film plays longer than its hefty 145 minutes because (I'm guessing) Scott's research showed that time was notoriously slower in the Middle Ages. The speeches are boring, pompous, and transparently anti-religious. The priests are poor theologians and offer spiritual guidance that one can only describe as a kind of uplifting nihilism: "I'm your priest," one comforts Balian (Orlando Bloom). "God has abandoned you."
This is the same priest that plunders the gold cross from Balian's dead wife and then orders the gravediggers to chop off her head as a large cross looms behind him. Some viewers may feel enlightened by such symbolism, but Christians will notice that the only other headchopping is done by a crusader. The Prophet Mohammed instituted a scriptural basis in the Koran 500 years earlier for chopping off the heads of infidels, but Scott's research must have concluded that it was really graveyard priests who liturgized the practice that is now such a hit with Muslim jihadists.
Besides the droll priest, there is also a bishop who has some great lines, as when he advocates jumping on the fastest horse and abandoning the people of Jerusalem to slaughter. He simpers to Balian: "It is unfortunate about the people, but," he says, ending on a positive note, "it is God's will." When it's too late to flee, he helpfully tells Balian, "Convert to Islam.Repent later." There are various shots of monks and other clerics blessing the crusaders as they go off to do their dirty work: "To kill an infidel is not murder. It's the path to heaven." Whether it's priest or crusader, massacre and the blessing of massacre is all in a day's work. As the mad knight Reynald gleefully reflects after one of his slaughters: "I am what I am.Someone has to be!"
That "I am" speech comes dangerously close to blaspheming God's speech in Exodus 3:14: "I am who I am." The one relatively noble Christian, Tiberius (the name of a pagan Roman emperor), tells Balian: "The world has no need of a perfect knight." And in that statement we can find the clearest expression of Scott's anti-religious agenda. Christ, of course, is the "perfect knight" and look, the movie seems to say, at all the killing that's been done in his name. In the movie's war of words, its secular pieties are repeated ad nauseum.
The opposing idea to Reynald's travesty of God's speech is the Humanist commandment that Balian carved in a beam of his smithy shop: "What man is a man that does not leave the world better." Balian's father (Liam Neeson) tells him that he must always speak the truth, even if it costs him his life. The good king of Jerusalem, dying of leprosy, wears a silver mask and tells Balain that he will not be forgiven for wrong deeds, "Even where those who move you be kings, or men of power." When Balian refuses to have the wicked Guy de Lusignan killed, he declares that, implicitly, Jerusalem is "a kingdom of conscience or it is nothing." All of these speeches must be understood in the context of their antithesis: to act according to enlightened humanist principles is more rational and moral than to act according to an irrational faith.
There are two symbolic scenes at the end of the movie. In the first, during the battle for Jerusalem, we see the captured king of Jerusalem riding backwards on a donkey before the city gates wearing what looks like a dunce cap. That gratuitous anti-Jesus image will anger some Christians and cause others to roll their eyes in disbelief, but its purpose is to serve as a perfect bookend to Reynald's speech above. Scott makes sure he mocks the Son as well as the Father. But aside from Christians, I wonder how sincere Muslims will feel about one of their prophets being mocked for laughs by the movie's religious Muslims?
The second instance of heavy-handed symbolism occurs when Saladin picks up a fallen altar cross and sets it on a table, a gesture so ludicrous as to provide an inadvertent moment of comic relief. The battle in Jerusalem concludes with Balian leaving town while portentously pronouncing, "If this is the Kingdom of Heaven, let God do with it as he wills."
The "Kingdom of Heaven" is not a terrible movie, although its historical assumptions are biased, incomplete, and error-ridden. For instance, there is no mention of the fact that the Muslims conquered Spain four hundred years before the crusades, They occupied Spain for nearly seven hundred years, until the fall of Granada in 1492, which might explain why the Spanish are sympathetic to Muslims. Islamic armies had even advanced into France where Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 733. A fair-minded observer might suggest that those wars of aggression and conquest against Christian lands might have something to do with why Christians were feeling a little cranky in 1184.
But aside from those deceptions, there is little in it to offend and less to recommend it. For those who want to see more of less, Scott is producing a 285 minute director's cut on DVD. Fair warning: if you sit through the whole thing, your clothes may acquire that shabby look that Scott's research has shown to be distinctly Christian.
To better understand the worldview of the creator's of this film, read our interview with actor Orlando Bloom and director Ridley Scott (shown above)
More importantly, all the egregious anti-Christian scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor will be on full display there. One Muslim scholar who saw the full version of the film said the scenes of Muslims destroying churches would cause anti-Muslim hatred. Ridley no doubt took that sympathetic advice to heart and left those scenes out. Note: he left them out, not of sensitivity to Christian sensibilities, but out of sensitivity to Muslim ones.
My advice is to rent "Phantom of the Opera" and withhold your eight bucks from this anti-Christian plate offering. Hollywood is on a relentless crusade of its own against Christianity. Why fund more of the same?
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
Michael the Syrian, the 12th century Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, reproducing earlier contemporary sources in his famous Chronicle, summarized the prevailing conditions for Christians in Palestine, as follows:
As the Turks were ruling the lands of Syria and Palestine, they inflicted injuries on Christians who went to pray in Jerusalem, beat them, pillaged them, levied the poll tax at the gate of the town and also at Golgotha and the [Holy] Sepulchre; and in addition, every time they saw a caravan of Christians, particularly of those from Rome and the lands of Italy, they made every effort to cause their death in diverse ways. And when countless people had perished as a result, the kings and counts were seized with [religious] zeal and left Rome; troops from all these countries joined them, and they came by sea to Constantinople [First Crusade (1096-99)]."
Also, see articles (off-site): Jihad begot the Crusades
Positive—I… was amazed at the quality. Not only does this movie have spectacular effects and sets and costumes as promised by the makers, but the storyline is great. You really relate to the main character, Balian. Most of us face doubt and we question our beliefs and our worthiness in God's eyes, but that should not stop us from doing what is right. Balian's relationship with Nasir is a great example of respect and compassion among enemies. Because Balian showed mercy to Nasir, later Balian receives mercy from Nasir.
Though short, Balian's relationship with his father is one of profound importance in which it helps mold him into the man he is to become. In short I truly enjoyed this movie. Every aspect of the production was magnificent and the actors all gave a wonderful performance. It was great to see familiar and respected actors and some new talents. I think Orlando Bloom delivered a great performance, and I look forward to following his career.
My Ratings: Better than Average/5
Alejandra Orozco, age 22
Positive—Best epic ever made by Scott. I was able to see this movie two weeks early. All that I know is that this was a high budget, grade-A film! When I went in to see KOH I expected to see a awful remake of "Gladiator," but I was surprised to see such a great epic that was very close to accurate! This movie is far better than "Gladiator" and I love "Gladiator"! The story is set in the 12th century; the film focuses on a young blacksmith (Orlando Bloom) who becomes a knight and helps defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders. There is also a love story, as the young knight falls in love with a hot princess (Eva Green). Great battle scenes. Bloom was great, green was hot, Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons played there roles the best! I loved the way Scott mixed action, war, drama, and he fit romance in there to. All in all, a must see movie for all viewers over 10 years.
My Ratings: Average/5
Tom Smith, age 20
Positive—Ridley Scott gives us good Christian men characters in the film, for example Tiberius. Tiberius does not lose his faith as is suggested by some of the other reviews, he just realizes God was not with him during the sin he committed by being a crusader. The fact that he provides moderate Christian views as a christian alternative to those Christians that committed a crime against humanity in the crusades is a look at what all christian should strive to be, peaceful loving spiritual people who follow the teachings of Christ.
Also according to each of the three major religions that are dealt with, here each faith has a rightful claim to Jerusalem. And it is true historical fact that Salidan did provide the Christians safe passage to the sea after retaking Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that the Christians killed every man woman and child in the city when that had previously conquered it. I also do not understand the condemning of the idea that all of these people of religion should live and worship in the same city peacefully, nor do I understand it being called humanistic. At the basis of each of these religions is the ultimate teaching of love and peace. That being said the film still lacked in character development and action, but overall was entertaining. The fact is that not all things done in the name of God are Godly or righteous, and the crusades is a great example of how this is true. We as christian should learn from this.
John, age 24
Positive—…In terms of the stance taken toward the Muslims of the time, at most this film could be considered too sympathetic toward them… I enjoyed this film and never felt as if my faith was under attack. On the contrary, it struck me as if the director and writer were searching for genuine meaning in religion, and were opposed to nominalism and institutionalism. Well, guess what—so am I. …the institutional church of the time was to a great degree corrupt, and the priests who specifically rallied the troops for the Crusades were themselves an atrocious substitute for genuine biblical leadership. I too oppose *that* kind of clericalism! …Karounos claims that Reynald's "'I am' speech comes dangerously close to blaspheming God's speech in Exodus 3:14: 'I am who I am.'" This is just nonsense. First of all there's no reason to presume this was the intent of the script's dialog; and secondly even if that were the case, it could easily be attributed to the evil of the character, not of the writer or director. Do a little research and you'll find that the real Reynald was indeed a violent and despicable person.
…Nominal Christianity was what barred Jews and Muslims from entering Jerusalem in the years of the so-called "Kingdom of Jerusalem" leading up to Saladin's recapture of the city in 1187—after which time, lo and behold, the Muslim leader "permitted worship of all religions." (Source: "Jerusalem" in Wikipedia.org) The Columbia Encyclopedia adds: "The reputation that Saladin had among the Christians for generosity and chivalry does not seem to have been a legend" ("Saladin" at Bartleby.com). Despite whatever historical inaccuracies are to be found in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, apparently Saladin really was a more honorable man than the nominal Christians against whom he warred…
Andy, age 37
Positive—…This movie is violent and gory, but isn't life a lot at times. This epic is also long about 2 and ½ hours long, but breathtakingly filmed. I think all Christian adults can make an exception and see this rated R film.
John Strickland, age 36
Positive—I thought this was a good movie; it was well written and kept your attention. It was really clean, (no sex, nudity, language) which was its best feature. I'm not a history buff, so I wouldn't say it's all historically correct, or spiritually for that matter. Remember, it's Hollywood, when do they ever get anything right! But if you put all that aside, it was a pretty good movie.
My Ratings: Better than Average/3½
Kris, age 24
Positive—I'm not sure what to think about this film. …At the very most, "Kingdom Of Heaven" was beautiful. It looks absolutely fantastic. The visual elements, and superbly executed action scenes made this movie worth seeing on the big screen. Again, there are many other films that exploit their visual fair to better effect, but Kingdom holds up well enough. There is nothing we haven't seen before, with the exception of a central character who we only see behind a haunting mask.
There are other bigger problems then that however, not the least of which was the casting of Orlando Bloom. Maybe we're just getting tired of his pretty face, but the film would have been much better with a more appropriate actor. See all »
At the very least it was confusing. As long as the movie is, I felt it needed much more time to allow the characters to grow under it's enormous narrative weight. Some gratuitous exposition would have been useful here.
I managed to follow the plot up until the unnecessary love scene. When the sparks began to fly, I felt is was a good time to relieve myself, so I got up and headed for the facilities. Upon returning to the movie, not two minutes later, I found myself completely and utterly lost. I have never had a movie confuse me as much as this one did that I recall (though "Hero" came close). I found "Donnie Darko" easier to understand then "Kingdom Of Heaven." Either I missed something terribly important, or there's something wrong with my brain, or the movie's writers were just sloppy.
I didn't feel it was as anti-Christian as many have made it out to be. It certainly wasn't very balanced, but I didn't sense any prejudice outside of normal Hollywood parameters. I will admit though, the Muslim guy replacing the dilapidated cross to it's rightful place with reverence was a little corny, and unrealistic. Plus, the insistence that Muslims and Christians worship the same God gets a little tiring as time wears on.
Ultimately, "Kingdom Of Heaven" deserved a much better lead actor, script, and screenplay. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a waste, but it isn't the best film experience I've had this summer. Had these hurts been amended, it could have been a classic, worthy of "Gladiator" or "The Lord of the Rings."
My Ratings: Very Offensive/4½
Cade Loven, age 18
Positive—I think the criticisms of this movie are unwarranted. "Kingdom of Heaven" is not anti-Christian, what it is, is ant-futility. I think Ridley Scott and his crew have made a flawed but insightful film about the absurdity of three of the world's great religions feuding over what is meant to be one of the Holiest places on Earth. If people cannot get along in Jerusalem, where can they get along? Like it or not we all have to live together or not.
The film comes across as more pro-Muslim than other Hollywood films but only because other films are generally so anti-Muslim. Yet, historians have noted that even many Crusaders considered Saladin a more chivalrous leader than some of their leaders. One of the central themes of the film is to do what is right and just, over what is easy. Another central theme is—follow God not religious dogma. Religion divides God unites.
My Ratings: Good / 4
Frank, age 29
Neutral—While I disagree with the noble portrayal of the Muslims in this movie, I believe the portrayal of the Catholic Church is entirely accurate. The fact is that murderers and thugs of all kinds were released from prisons and given absolution from all their sins if they would go on the crusades. Unspeakable acts against infidels were condoned and encouraged by the Catholic Church. …It's best to acknowledge the atrocities done in the name of Christ and then explain that the reason is simple, Satan hates the name of Christ and will do anything to discredit Christianity and the Bible. It's like identity theft. If I steal your identity and run up a bunch of bills, you are not responsible for those bills. In the same way evil people hijack the name of Christ to give themselves legitimacy. Their actions are not Christian. That is why it is so important for Christians to read and study the Bible for themselves.
Ian Mann, age 53
Neutral—"Jerusalem belongs to everyone" Is the modern humanist theme that is spoken by the "christian" defender of Jerusalem, just before Saladin's siege in this movie. Any real analysis of the promises of God in the Old Testament reveal very plainly that God specifically gave all of the land of Israel to the Israelites. Obviously, they rebelled against Him, but that did not erase God's promise to them. Just as our sin does not erase God's grace through Christ.
Jesus said "…Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled…" -Luke 21. God finally reestablished Jerusalem in 1948 as the capital of Israel. The times of the Gentiles are coming to an end. See all »
Trouble is not over for Jerusalem. It is Satan's most hated city because it is the future seat of his destroyer. Right now in 2005, Jerusalem is a safer city than most American cities. You are more likely to be mugged or shot in America. But that peace will not last. Armies will once again siege Jerusalem. Yet, this future siege will be led by forces darker than any previous invader.
The real King of Jerusalem will then come to defend his "city of peace" and his chosen people. His feet will touch down upon the Mount of Olives and the mountain will split in two. —Zec. 14:4
The modern humanist view says that we can all live together in peace and harmony. Everybody should have a piece of Jerusalem. But the oft denied fact is that there is a real King of Jerusalem that is getting very tired of his city being trampled and divided by those who don't hold the promise of ownership. Most of the crusaders had no real knowledge of the real message of the Gospel, or they would not have slaughtered so many helpless Jews and Arabs. And the Muslims simply want to kill anyone who does not submit to Allah. That is a fact of history. The moderate non-violent Muslims of today will be taken over by the extreme and conquering ones. They want nothing less than the destruction of the people of Israel.
Yes, many more millions will needlessly die fighting over a small city in a small country. Most of it motivated by illogical hate. Imagine if the Muslims just stopped hating Israel. Then there would be peace in the middle east. But they won't stop hating. They are physically and spiritually unable to stop hating, because their god of the crescent moon commands them to destroy the infidels just like the false Christians of the Crusades killed Jew and Arab infidels.
There will be no peace in Jerusalem until the real King of the Kingdom of Heaven returns. And the only peace the rest of us can have now is by believing that truth.
My Ratings: Average/3½
John DiBartolo, age 33
Neutral—It depends on how you view the film, If you view the big picture, you'll find that 1) Christians were not depicted as they really were back then. The relation between the main character and God was that of a distant God who because he (the main character) had committed murder, he first had to do something to gain God's forgiveness and have a relationship with God. (In other words) he "ignores" God's grace). 2) Muslims were pretty much depicted as "heroes" if you will. They were shown as if they had every right to take Jerusalem, which is really reserved for God's people, Jews and Christians.
P, age 21
Neutral—While I disagree with the noble portrayal of the Muslims in this movie, I believe the portrayal of the Catholic Church is entirely accurate. The fact is that murderers and thugs of all kinds were released from prisons and given absolution from all their sins if they would go on the crusades. Unspeakable acts against infidels were condoned and encouraged by the Catholic Church.
Pretending it didn't happen only makes it look like you are trying to cover up. It's best to acknowledge the atrocities done in the name of Christ and then explain that the reason is simple, Satan hates the name of Christ and will do anything to discredit Christianity and the Bible. See all »
It's like identity theft. If I steal your identity and run up a bunch of bills, you are not responsible for those bills. In the same way evil people hijack the name of Christ to give themselves legitimacy. Their actions are not Christian. That is why it is so important for Christians to read and study the Bible for themselves.
Neutral—I found the movie inspiring, even though the Crusaders were portrayed in a very negative light. I am not trying to excuse their actions, but I affirm that both sides were very guilty in God's sight, whether it was a war of aggression or retaliation, they were all living by the sword, and dying by the same.
The reason I found it inspiring is because it portrays a Christ-like insight of what the Kingdom of Heaven is truly all about. I think the movie can be enjoyed by any fair-minded believing Christian, when seen in light of three New Testament verses, and indeed that was my experience: See all »
Matthew 7:21—"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Luke 17:20-21—Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."
Romans 14:17-19—For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
I do not know about the director's faith or intentions, but I believe that the message of the movie is neither humanistic nor pro-Moslem, but strictly Christian.
…I did not find De Lusignan's humiliation insulting, or the "I am what I am" comment blasphemous since both of them spoke in the name of God and called Him Lord, but were AntiChrists in heart. It tells me more about the fallenness of those hypocritical Pharisees, than about any humanistic ridicule to Christianity.
My conclusion that this movie, if taken with full sincerity, can be very inspiring and can make clear to use so many forgotten truths of our glorious mostly left unapplied principles of our Christian (Christ-like) faith.
I do not deny hidden intention, but I saw from the so many comments posted by the many people of differing backgrounds who watched the movies is that everyone sees what he or she wishes to see in the movie. For the atheist, this movie says that faith is deadly. For the moslem, this movie says "Man, we are really glorious and victors" and for the Christian, it all depends on his or her denominational bias, but I hope we see things through God's eyes and His Holy Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.
RG, age 23
Neutral—First off, to answer one comment, this film doesn't touch Gladiator. There's no main character you become that involved with, no real emotional connection to the hero or absolute hatred of the villan.
…Are there some anti-Christian undertones in the film? At times there are, no question, but people seem to be ignoring the other truths the film presents. In one instance Tyberias tells Balian, "Holiness is in right action. What God desires is here (points to his head) and here (points to his heart)." That sounds like a rather accurate description of faith and works to me. Bailian also disregards the very "religious" traditions presented to him at several times during the film and later sarcastically tells a bishop "I've learned a lot about religion from you" in response to his very religious advice. See all »
Director Ridley Scott, an agnostic, said in an interview that religion should consist solely of "good actions, of doing the right thing by others, whatever their beliefs. That's what we show with Balian in Kingdom of Heaven. If we could just take God out of the equation for a second, concentrate on how you live. If we could abide by that, there'd be no f****** problem." Aside from the idea of leaving God out of the equation Scott seems to actually have the right idea.
How many Christians live in their happy Christian bubbles, going to church and spending time with their Christian friends and not really affecting anyone? Maybe we DO need to worry about our actions a bit more, showing others that our faith does change us and that we actually do the right things in our everyday lives and treat others as we should. I often think that non-believers "get it" more than we do.
Chris F, age 31
Negative—Not surprisingly the movie is revisionistic, although the edited version is not as bad as I had anticipated. As a historian (my history of the Holy Roman Empire comes out in a few months), I was amused to find Guy of Lusignan depicted as having started the war with Saladin, whereas in reality Saladin had been planning an attack for years. Guy of Lusignan was also portrayed as secretly cooperating with the Templar Knights to start the war, when, in fact, the Templar knights hated Guy of Lusignan and refused to cooperate with him up until the end (this is one reason he failed against Saladin).
Many many other inaccuracies could be mentioned, but the biggest problem with the movie was the lack of sympathetic characters. Only Baldwin IV was a truly noble character which left you not really caring about anyone. Why should I care if they lived or died if I don't really like any of them? I do not have a problem per se with the depiction of corrupt priests or knights (as they certainly existed), but surely there are some noble priests and knights somewhere?
Overall, the movie is, like most Ridley Scott movies, well made, has beautiful cinematography, and violent. It is better than "Gladiator, but I was not a fan (Commodus DID NOT die in the arena) of that movie. If Scott had created some more sympathetic characters the movie would have been much better. As is, it is a beautiful production, but has no depth and is largely a politically correct depiction of the Crusades with Catholics as the true villains.
David Criswell, Ph.D., age 38
Negative—Ridley Scott's blockbuster epic "Kingdom of Heaven" presents one of the worst distortions of history seen on any screen in recent years. Focusing on the fall of Jerusalem in AD 1187, to Saladin's Muslim armies, this anti-Christian, politically correct revisionism gets everything wrong.
WHO CARES ABOUT GEOGRAPHY? First of all, Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" has its geography very wrong. We know that the film was shot in Spain and Morocco, and it shows. Most people should know that Jerusalem is not in the middle of the Sahara Desert! Yet, in his film, Jerusalem's high walls are surrounded by sand dunes, without a tree, a bush or a blade of grass. The Mount of Olives, the Kidron Valley and the Valley of Hinnon are nowhere to be seen. Unlike the Crusaders who liberated Jerusalem in 1099, Saladin's Army has no problem moving his siege engines and assault towers right up to the walls of Jerusalem, because Scott's Jerusalem in "Kingdom of Heaven" is not surrounded by valleys or ditches. This film also boldly asserts that Messina was the seaport to the Holy Land. As Messina is on the Island of Sicily, one wonders why French crusaders would, or how they could, depart from there. In fact, Genoa, Venice and Naples were the ports which crusaders set sail from.
THIS IS A TRUE STORY—ONLY THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED: "Kingdom of Heaven" also distorts history beyond all recognition. The "hundred-year truce" between the Christian and Muslim armies is a figment of their imagination. The warfare throughout the 12th Century was incessant. The depiction of the Knight's Templar as a band of religious fanatics trying to shatter the truce and provoke war with the Muslims by attacking caravans is a total fabrication. No Knight's Templar ever attacked any caravans. Attacking caravans is what the founder of Islam, Muhammad, engaged in regularly, as did his handpicked apostles, the Caliphs. The Knights Templar were formed primarily to protect travelers from the attacks of the Muslim army. In fact, it was the slaughter of Christian pilgrims, by Muslim armies, in violation of earlier agreements of safe passage that precipitated the crusades in the first place.
The central figure of this film, Sir Balian, is a historical figure, did in fact play a critical role in the defense of Jerusalem in 1187, but the film script distorts his character and role beyond all recognition. First of all, Balian was not a blacksmith, nor did his wife commit suicide, nor was he illegitimate, nor raised as a commoner. His father, Balian the Old (not Godfrey, as in the movie), had three sons, all legitimate: Hugh, Baldwin and Balian. Balian never had to travel to the Holy Land, because he grew up as part of the nobility there. Balian was married to royalty long before the events portrayed in the film, and he was not at all romantically involved with the Princess Sybilla. (His brother, Baldwin, had some love interest in Sybilla.) In "Kingdom of Heaven," Balian is portrayed as questioning whether God exists, although, according to the historical records, it is clear that Balian was a dedicated Christian who took his faith very seriously. Nor did Balian desert the defense of the Holy Land following the fall of Jerusalem. Far from returning to France, Balian proceeded to Beirut in Lebanon which he helped fortify against Muslim invasion. He was present with Richard the Lionhearted at the signing of the peace with Saladin, which secured safe passage for Christian pilgrims and recognized crusader control over the 90 mile stretch of coastline from Tyre to Jaffa. See all »
According to "Kingdom of Heaven," the real hero in the story is the famous Muslim general, Saladin (1138-1193). Although an exceptionally gifted military strategist and unusually chivalrous, the film has uncritically accepted, and embellished, the legends about Saladin beyond what the historical record would support. A Muslim Kurd, from Northern Iraq, Saladin was raised in a privileged family, and was very ambitious. At age 14, he joined his uncle's military staff, and at 31 followed him to Egypt where his uncle was Grand Vizier. When his uncle died two months later, Saladin seized power, defeated competing Muslim leaders and started a dynasty which established Egypt as the major Muslim power in the Middle East.
Far from having war forced upon him, Saladin initiated the conflict by declaring a Jihad against the Christians. He swept throughout Palestine capturing more than 50 crusader castles in two years. At the battle of Hattin on 4 July 1187, Saladin's army defeated the Christians on the shores of Lake Tiberius (the Sea of Galilee)—although in the film this battle is depicted as in waterless desert! Far from being the magnanimous victor depicted in modern legends and this film, Saladin was a ruthless general who had thousands of Christian prisoners beheaded in cold blood—including after the battle of Hattin.
In the film, Saladin is portrayed as being most gracious in allowing the defenders of Jerusalem safe passage. In fact, after the negotiated surrender of Jerusalem, which the Patriarch of Jerusalem initiated, Saladin demanded that every man, women and child in Jerusalem pay a ransom for his or her freedom or face the grim prospect of Islamic slavery. In order to save the lives and liberty of the poor people who could not afford the heavy ransom demanded by Saladin, Balian paid out of his own resources the ransom required for those who could not afford it.
TWISTED THEOLOGY: The theology in "Kingdom of Heaven" is also all wrong. The film depicts some monk standing by the roadside repeating: "To kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to heaven!" As any student of the Bible would be able to tell you, neither the concept nor those words appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. However, as any student of the Quran should be able to inform you, that is exactly what the Islamic doctrine of Jihad teaches.
At one point, early in the film, as Muslims bow in prayer towards Mecca, Balian comments: "You allow them to pray?" A knight sneers and answers: "As long as they pay their taxes!" In fact, the crusaders never required any extra taxes of Muslims in order to allow them to pray. That is the Islamic doctrine and practice of Jizya. To this day, Muslim governments require Jizya—tribute taxes—of dhimmi's (Jews and Christians under their Islamic rule).
Before the crusaders march out to the disastrous battle of Hattin, the film has one knight declaring: "The army of Jesus Christ cannot be beaten." However, there is no such doctrine in the Bible, or in Christian theology. It is, in fact, Islamic dogma that no Muslim army can ever be defeated by an infidel army. This Muhammad asserted on the authority of Allah himself. (Something which the recent defeats, of the Taliban, in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein's Muslim military superpower of the Middle East, Iraq, by the Americans has precipitated a serious theological problem for Islamic scholars.)
Insults to intelligence, quite aside from the factual errors in geography, the attributing of Islamic doctrine to the Christians, and the blatant distortion of history, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is an insult to the intelligence of its viewers, in terms of its preposterous script. Here we are expected to believe that: Balian is grieving his wife's death, yet he does not even attend to her burial; that Balian raised a commoner, trained only as a blacksmith, from France, could within days of arriving in Palestine be teaching the local people how to practice agriculture and dig wells in the desert; and that this blacksmith with no military training could know more about siege weapons and military strategy than all the knights and military professionals concentrated in the Holy Land put together! Just where would a blacksmith have learnt all about siege engines, trebuchets, cavalry tactics and defensive strategy?
The fictional, adulterous relationship depicted between Balian and Princess Sybilla strains all credibility. As does Balian's presumed ethical objections against executing the venomous and bloodthirsty husband of his presumed adulterous interest! Apparently justice and the avoiding of a disastrous war were not as important as his adulterous affections.
Aside from the terrain around Jerusalem being so conveniently flat for the invading armies, the depicted firepower and range capabilities of the catapults and trebuchets are ridiculous. Steel cranes with three-inch titanium cables would have trouble sustaining the weight and strain with which these 12th Century wooden and rope trebuchets were meant to have pulverized the thick walls of Jerusalem! The filmmakers of "Kingdom of Heaven" try to make up for a lack of script and character development by overdosing on computer generated explosions and fictional firepower capabilities. (Actually, maximum range for a 12th Century catapult would have been 150 yards with a 300 pound rock.)
And how can any viewer, with a grasp of history or military tactics, swallow the kind of tactics and strategy dished up in films like "Kingdom of Heaven"? What soldiers throw their shields away just before engaging a massive assault by the enemy?! Apparently, Orlando Bloom wanted his long flowing locks to flow in the breeze, but seriously, what knight would throw his helmet away just before engaging in hand to hand combat?!
Also, as any student of history and anthropology should be able to tell you, the crusaders did not burn the bodies of their dead. That was the practice of the Vikings, the ancient Greeks and the Hindus, but not of the Christians who buried their dead. The ridiculous speech, with its feel good "why can't we all just get along" drivel, dished up by Orlando Bloom's Balian on the walls of Jerusalem (while Saladin's armies politely delay their attack until he has finished) may sound believable to some 21st Century Humanist, but these were not the convictions or sentiments of any 12th Century crusader.
As for the pathetic egalitarian gesture of knighting everybody—without any training, testing or code of conduct—is so unhistorical, and so out of touch with reality, as to make one wonder what drugs the scriptwriter was on at the time.
Then there's that shipwreck. To expect us to believe that the hero of the film could go down with the ship in high seas, and awake the next morning alive and well, on the shore—with the entire crew and every passenger, and every horse dead, and neatly deposited on the shore—is ludicrous. Especially that the only survivors of the shipwreck were the hero, and his horse! And, of course, very conveniently, his father's sword was not the kind of heavy sword that would sink to the bottom of the ocean, but was also neatly deposited next to this sole survivor!
CRUSADE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY: The ridiculous and inane comments attributed to the bishop in the film are also not only highly unlikely, but jarringly anachronistic. Producer Ridley Scott, and scriptwriter William Monahan, obviously hate Christianity. But, just in case any viewers lack the discernment to detect the unveiled anti-Christian hostility and prejudice, which permeates the entire movie, Ridley Scott, has gone on record as stating: "Balian is an agnostic, just like me." Of course, there was no such thing as agnosticism in the 12th Century, especially not amongst crusaders. The word "agnostic" was a 19th Century invention.
Just in case anyone misunderstood the motivations behind his movie, Ridley Scott has been quoted as saying: "If we could just take God out of the equation, there would be no f… problem!"
ENTERTAINMENT OR EXPLOITATION? Considering how few people today read history books, and how most depend entirely on these kind of "based on a true story—the names and the places are true—only the facts have been changed to protect the guilty" films, for their understanding of the past, this kind of blind prejudice and obsessive hatred against Christianity on the part of producers and directors should be frightening. As Karl Marx declared "The first battlefield is the rewriting of history." I'm sure that all the enemies of Christianity are delighted with propaganda pictures like "Kingdom of Heaven."
Further evidence of the blind anti-Christian prejudice of many in Hollywood is seen in some of the reviews of "Kingdom of Heaven": Frederick Brussat of Spirituality and Health comments: "We are pleased to see (the Muslims) come across in a more positive light in this well intentioned blockbuster about the crusades all of the Christians in this story come across as arrogant and unlikable human beings never darkening the door of a church. Their Muslim counterparts, on the other hand, are seen doing the ritual prayer; in one impressive scene this involves Saladin's entire army."
Varia Galley's Filmiliar Cineaste is quite positive about the film and describes it as "A grand success and a moving depiction of the crusades as a bloodbath in the name of piety. Scott makes the point that religious zealotry has historically resulted in mass slaughter." That is, of course, a commonly held article of faith of Secular Humanists, but the fact is that far more people have died in the name of Atheism and Secular Humanism (over 180 million citizens were murdered by their own Secular Humanist / Atheist / Communist governments just in the 20th Century alone), than by all other organized religions combined.
A POLITICAL AGENDA: It is also interesting to note the political lessons that some reviewers seem to derive from the film. William Arnold in the Seattle Post Intelligencer comments that the "Kingdom of Heaven" "is an again compelling argument for the growing contention that the city (Jerusalem) should be internationalized and administered for all faiths by the United Nations"! Considering that the United Nations could not even administer Angola, Rwanda, Somalia, or Bosnia without widespread massacres taking place under their "protection" it is not very clear why the United Nations should be trusted with anything at all. (To refute this argument see "Hotel Rwanda.")
THE VERDICTS OF THE FILM CRITICS: To be fair, many reviewers were critical of the film and condemned it:
"Scott's would be epic… has the feel of a retread the battle scenes looked like a PlayStation video game" (Bob Bloom—Rotten Tomatoes)
"(Scott's) latest epic hero film is without one key ingredient, the hero miscasting made all the more noticeable when Scott surrounds his delicate star with big, strapping monsters in chain mail weighing it down further is a gutless script but lots of pseudo politics alluding to our modern day semi-religious war between the West and Islam." (Annette Cardwell—filmcritic.com)
"As history, Monahan's script is suspect." (Bob Bloom)
"Kingdom of Heaven deserves extreme caution for its theological and historical weaknesses." (Movieguide)
"For almost five years now, Hollywood studios have been trying to duplicate the success of 'Gladiator' by making the same big budget historical battle epic over ('The Last Samurai') and over ('Troy') and over ('King Arthur') and over ('Alexander'). Each movie has re-imagined history from a modern perspective and hewed to a shopworn formula in which the hero rallies his men against great odds and for the greater good the hero also always finds time to romance a beautiful woman from another culture. 'Kingdom of Heaven' is more of the same. The historical accuracy of the combat finale with the events and circumstances that surround it, are dubious at best. The film is even less reliable when it comes to its hero's personal history. The real life Balian has otherwise been fictionalized almost beyond recognition—especially when it comes to the obligatory Hubba Hubba with the generically pretty wife of the villain. Balian's wallpaper performance which certainly won't hold the attention of anyone who does not have his pinups plastered around her bedroom doesn't do the guy any favors either. The Muslim Sultan Saladin has been embellished to sit better with 21st Century audiences." (William Blackwelder—Splicedonline.com)
"Ridley Scott's 'Kingdom of Heaven' has at its center a humorlessness, gracelessness and tortured self importance the movie's horrible editing style of shake the camera and cut really fast; it's a method of covering up action, rather than highlighting it, and it usually means that there is not much action to begin with. What finally emerges is a ponderously dull, curiously inert epic that joins the ranks of other recent failures like 'The Last Samurai' and 'Alexander'." (Jeffrey Anderson—Combustible Celluloid)
CRUDE STEREOTYPING: "Kingdom of Heaven" is a whole lot of nothing about O, you know, that thing that happened in olden times when a bunch of power hungry white men went a bit God-crazy and invaded the Middle East on a moral superiority kick. The gold wasn't bad either." (Walter Chaw—filmfreakcentral.net)
This typical, if crude, stereotyping of the crusades is quite enlightening. It illustrates the pervasive ignorance of history that enables revisionist filmmakers like Scott to get away with such blatant distortions of reality.
THE FACTS OF HISTORY: The fact is that the crusades of the Middle Ages were a reaction to centuries of Islamic Jihad. In the first century of Islam alone, Muslim invaders conquered the whole of the previously Christian North Africa destroying over 3200 churches—in just 100 years. In the first three centuries of Islam, Muslim forces killed Christians, kidnapped their children to raise them as Muslims, or compelled people at the point of the sword to convert to Islam. Up to 50% of all the Christians in the world were wiped out during those first three centuries of Islam. The Saracens (as the Muslim invaders were called) desecrated Christian places of worship and were severely persecuting Christians. Pilgrims were then prevented from visiting those places where our Lord was born, was crucified and raised from the dead. It was only after four centuries of Islamic Jihad that the crusades were launched as a belated reaction to the blatant Islamic Jihad.
LOGISTICS AND ECONOMICS: As the Christian History Institute has pointed out, the characterizing of crusaders as only in it for the plunder and the loot betrays an ignorance of both geography and history. The vast majority of the crusaders were impoverished and financially ruined by the crusades. Crusaders, through great sacrifice and personal expense, left their homes and families to travel 3000km across treacherous and inhospitable terrain—and the shortest crusade lasted 4 years. Considering that only 10% of the crusaders had horses, and 90% were foot soldiers, the sheer fact of logistics is that the crusaders could not possibly have carried back enough loot to have made up for the loss of earnings and high expenses involved with these long crusades. Many crusaders lost their homes and farms to finance their involvement in the crusades.
THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN MONEY: Perhaps self-seeking materialistic agnostics in the 21st Century cannot understand that some people could be motivated by something other than personal financial enrichment, but the fact is that many people make sacrifices for their religious convictions, and in order to help others. In the case of the crusaders, the historical record makes clear that amongst the motivations that led tens of thousands of volunteers to reclaim the Holy Land was a sense of Christian duty to help their fellow Christians in the East whose lands have been invaded and churches desecrated by Muslim armies, and a desire to secure access to the Holy Lands for pilgrims. There was also a desire to fight for the honor of their Lord Jesus Christ, Whose churches had been destroyed and Whose Deity had been denied by the Mohammedan aggressors. In other words, to the crusaders this was a defensive war to reclaim Christian lands from Muslim invaders. We may not share their convictions, or agree with their methods, but we ought to evaluate them in the light of the realities of the 11th and 12th centuries, and not anachronistically project our standards and politics back upon them.
THE MISSING JIHAD: Scriptwriter William Monahan, and Director Ridley Scott, obviously don't understand the motivations behind the crusaders, and apparently they do not understand the Islamic doctrine of Jihad either—which the film makes no reference to. Considering that Jihad was the central threat that had lead to the reaction of the crusades, this omission is inexplicable. "Kingdom of Heaven" preoccupies itself with fictionalizing crusader atrocities, but it ignores the pattern of the preceding five centuries of genocide and aggression by Islamic armies.
Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is politically correct, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim propaganda. It makes poor entertainment and is a worthless distortion of reality.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3
Dr. Peter Hammond, age 44 (South Africa)
Negative—I saw the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" with a friend of mine this evening, and it moved me enough to write you this email. However, it did not move me in the way you may think. Never have I been more disturbed at the representation of Jesus Christ and the Christian church. This movie was an absolute mockery of what the body of Christ was like during the Crusades and made every attempt to follow the pseudo-liberal party line.
Every single Christian in the movie lost their faith, questioned God or eventually rejected Him. On the flip side the absolute heroes of the movie were God-fearing, wonderful Muslims who showed mercy to the Christians in time of need and even embraced the belief of living in harmony with Christians. All of you who know history would consider that laughable. I have been a fan of Ridley Scott after making movies such as "Black Hawk Down", however, now I am just saddened at his revision of true history. See all »
On a side note, the writing was absolutely terrible, due mostly because there were way too many gaps in the script. The editing was terrible because of the choppiness of skipping from scene to scene without really finishing them, and the character development was just not up to "Ridley Scott" standards in any aspect. You did not really feel involvement with anyone. The acting was decent, but the chemistry between the married queen and Orlando Bloom was just very badly written. There was not real development. I will not spoil the ending, but if you know history and the way the Crusades really were, you will almost laugh at the ending resolution.
Was the movie clean? Well, to sum up the rumors about the naughty scene, as well as the scene they showed on the previews… well, it was indeed cut out. There is not sex or nudity in the movie. Which is probably the movie's most attributing quality. There was no foul language, and the gross violence was kept to a minimum. It was no where near "Gladiator," but did give enough action violence to keep the movie going.
The main thrust of this e-mail is to warn you about the anti-Christian nature and also to let you know that many Muslims across the nations have praised this movie. If I was not a Christian I would give this movie 2 of 4 stars, because the fight scenes were good (not great, they were WAY too quick to be great, and there were only 2). Being a Christian, I give this movie 1 ½ stars.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive/1½
John Kehrli, age 31
Negative—I have very rarely been this offended in a movie theatre. The film portrayed Christians as blasphemous heathens pursuing their own political and moral agendas beneath the banner of the church, while the Muslims are respectful of the Christian faith, and willing to let bygones be bygones. The so-called "hero" rejects God and commits adultery with another man's wife. The film is entirely historically inaccurate, from calling the Mohammedans "Muslims" (a practice not commonly used until the mid-nineteen hundreds) to importing ridiculous European warfare into the streets of Jerusalem.
There were two good elements: the presence of a priest played by David Thewis, the only voice of moral courage and reason in the film, and the role of the King of Jerusalem, a truly just man. But what you wind up with is a politically correct attack on Christianity that is both unfounded, inaccurate, and offensive.
Charity Bishop, age 22
Negative—Don't worry about religion, trust me on this one—you will be spending all your time and effort trying to figure out the plot. Everyone from the first half of the movie, with the exception of Bloom, is gone in the second half; you have a whole new crowd to figure out who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys. History may be a muddle, but great movies should not be.
Christianity: Yes, Scott has an axe to grind—it comes through loud and clear. He is not the first nor will he be the last, but he is one of the more obvious. Wait for it on DVD.
My Ratings: Very Offensive/2
Pat, age 50
Negative—…something bothered me in the film that I could not put my finger on. I think that it offers an anti-Christian and politically correct view of the Crusades. The priests depicted in the film are thieves, or cowards, while the "Christians" are either agnostics or blood-thirsty killers. There is no hope, redemption or anyone who knows Christian teachings.
The theme of the movie is to preach a modern tolerance, which means we Christians need to be more sensitive, and less dedicated to our beliefs etc. Meanwhile, the Muslims are honorable and respectable. There is the assertion that Allah is the same God that the Christians worship. A glance at the Koran, Hadith or Sharia illustrates that this is not so (see http://islamreview.com). Finally, we are told that the Crusades were a ploy to make men rich. I recommend a visit to small Belgium town of Bouillon. It was here the Godfrey de Bouillon lived (the Godfrey who captured Jerusalem in 1099). His castle is worth a visit. He had to sell it and all his lands to pay for his role in the Crusade. Godfrey risked it all for this cause. See all »
On the other side—the film did an outstanding job portraying Medieval Warfare, and offered spectacular views of what Jerusalem looked like a thousand years ago.
The Crusades were not entirely Christian aggression. It was the Muslims who invaded and occupied the CHRISTIAN lands that make up modern day Jordan, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Romania, Lebanon, France, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia and Austria. From 630 AD until the 1700s the Christians were attacked and more often than not lost to the Muslims who persisted in a Jihad to capture Europe. What happened to the Christian Romans and Greeks of North Africa and the Middle East? They were suppressed and slowly ethnically cleansed by the invading armies. So much for the tolerance that the movie preaches.
It was during this time of dramatic Islamic expansion that the Crusades took place. Meanwhile, Christian pilgrims traveling to Israel were killed and Christian holy sites were destroyed (Muhammad Ali of Egypt destroyed the Holy Seplecure—the burn marks can be seen to this day in Jerusalem). After years of seeing its people slaughtered by Islamic raiders, and it religious holy sites destroyed, that the Crusades were launched. I don't condone the blood that was shed by both sides in this struggle. But history does show the basis of "The Kingdom of Heaven" is flawed.
Anyway—I see no harm in going to the movie as long as you are aware of the revisionist history used in it.
D Mastriano, age 41
Negative—It was too long for the plot. The movie could have easily been created for 90 minutes. As a Christian, I know these days that most movies are void of proper Christian themes, with a few sprinkled with pieces of Christian ethics. Christian or non-Christian, I think overall the movie was long, boring at some points, yes there was action—the bloody war scenes, but even those got tiring after a while.
My Ratings: Offensive/2
Cliff C, age 42
Negative—…This film might be symbolic of the kingdom of Hollyweird, but this is not the Kingdom of Heaven of The LORD of Hosts. The historicity is highly questionable as well!
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive/3
Bob C, age 41
Negative—Yet another politically correct product from the liberal Hollywood factory. The priests are poor theologians, offering no motivational praise for the Crusaders. The Muslims are portrayed as victims of Christians and such. The production values were okay, but the performances were hackneyed to the point of mediocrity.
Shannon H., age 23
Negative—This movie is not one of Scott's best; actually, it's one of his worst. The movie had no character development whatsoever, it was boring, and completely confusing. Bloom can't act at all, which is probably why he was given a total of 4 lines in the whole movie. Don't bother wasting your money.
Scott Williamson, age 18
Negative—I had no idea what to expect when I went to see this movie (Kingdom of Heaven) except that it was about the era of the Crusades and the takeover of the Holy Land by the Muslims. My first impression of the movie after seeing it was how anti-christian and pro-Muslim it was. I also wondered how did the "Dome of the Rock" get built on the most Holy Jewish site of Solomons temple if the Muslims were so tolerant? As a result of watching the movie I have begun reading material about the Crusades/Crusaders, the onslaught of the Holy Lands by Muslims, Knight Templars, Christian King of Jerusalem and etc. As a result I find the movie a big fabrication or lie about the events at that time.
Bottom line this movie represents typical liberal, bleeding heart "they are right and we are all wrong close minded" diatribe. Reminds me of anti-Vietnam movies like O. Stones movies Apocalypse and etc. I can't wait until (a premonition) somebody in Hollywood makes a move about Abu Grab Prison or some other anti-American movie about the Iraq War. Till Then, I told you so.
C. P. O'Neil, age 60
Negative—Who started the Crusades? If you think Christians, I would disagree. One man Urban pope II, started the Crusades. As a Christian, I do not have any of the same beliefs as Catholicism… I do not relate myself as a Christian to the Crusades. This movie never explained who started the crusades and why. If they mentioned the Pope started the crusades this would be an anti-Catholicism film. Instead of the truth, it made it sound as if the Christians started the Crusades. Very biased and makes me sick. If one would read the Koran, they would see a lot of scripture that is insane. The Muslims do not pray to the same god as my God. I do not believe in some things the Koran teaches.
I can go on and on giving history lessons. I know it was very brief and someone can easily disagree with me, but the fact is a Pope started the Crusades.
Cory, age 19
Comments from young people
Positive—I loved this movie, though I don't agree with some of the things portrayed in the movie, I think it is an exciting, well made movie, with great acting.
Lauren, age 15
Positive—This is an awesome movie. The direction was awesome and the acting was phenomenal. It is gory but the Crusades weren't a pretty time in history. Christians took over Jerusalem, then the Muslims took it back. They fought for years. The movie should be viewed because of the terrific acting and breathtaking scenes.
Jackie, age 16
Neutral—I …was surprised that Orlando Bloom did as well as he did. I was expecting him to run off and cry after getting a cut on his leg like in "Troy" or something. But he didn't, and he did a way better job than I ever thought possible. The acting by the other characters was pretty good too.
The scenery was beautiful; I loved just about every shot in the film. From the trebuchets firing to ships sinking in the sea, it looked great. Now I don't know everything about the Crusades, but I do know that there were wrongdoings on all sides, and I think that it was portrayed alright here, not perfectly or anything, but alright none the less.
The speeches and just… pointless talking… was kind of boring, but tolerable. I am looking forward to seeing the uncut version because I want to see what the director REALLY wanted to get across. Until I see the uncut version, I don't know where to stand on the film, because as far as I am concerned, I have not seen the entire film.
Cody Forsman, age 17
Positive—When I went to see this film I was amazed, it's incredible. I don't think it's anti christian in the slightest, the Crusades were anti christian; you can't change history. I am a christian, and I think it important to not get offended so easily. The battle scenes are gory, but it is necessary because that is what it would have been like. Bloom is at his best, and it flows really well. This film is about a man discovering were he belongs, and who he is—ten times better than Lord of the Rings, go and see it.
I am 15 years old, and I have never seen another film that has portrayed what happened in the Crusades. At the end of the day you can't force people to become Christians, but in some countries it is illegal to become a Christian. All it does is it shows what Christians did in the past that was wrong, but that shouldn't affect your judgment on the film. It helps you to understand more of what people who aren't Christians think about god. Take my word for it see it for your self.
My Ratings: Excellent!/5
jinx bells, age 16
Positive—This is the first time that I have ever written a comment on this site before, but I am glad that this is the movie for my first review. Overall, I believe that this was a very good movie. It was accurate, realistic, and action packed. But with the good always comes the bad. I was very surprised to find out about how much blasphemy there was in this film. In the beginning, Balian (Orlando), speaks of traveling to the Holy Land to find forgiveness for himself, and deceased wife. But somehow between leaving his homeland and defending Jerusalem, Balain "loses" his religion and gives various comments to other characters to make sure that they know this. Besides the other few below par, lines and actions, I thought that this movie was the best of its kind, since Gladiator.
Andrew Harwood, age 15
Movie Critics
…Christian ethics without Christ?…revisionist history about the Christian nobles in Jerusalem… strong negative attitude against organized religion, including some anti-Christian and anti-Muslim content…
Dr. Tom Snyder, Movieguide
…Ridley Scott has taken a true story from 800 years ago-Balian, Guy de Lusignan, Reynald de Chatillon, Baldwin IV, Sibylla and Saladin are all real characters-and bent it to fit his distinctly 21st century views on religion…
Tom Neven, Plugged In
…Not the epic it could have been… Bloom in this film's lead is a casting mistake that may well doom the film…
Annabelle Robertson, Crosswalk
…clichéd but breathtaking… Not least of the script's… flaws is that it's hard to see how such amoral repulsive bullies could get such gigantic armies (of real believers) to be so willingly and lemmingly led to guaranteed slaughter
Barry Paris, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
…Balian works out an enlightened, egalitarian worldview that seems a good five centuries ahead of its time… only thing that's likely to get some people worked up about "Kingdom of Heaven" is its insistence on the villainy of some Crusaders and the almost uniform dignity of their Muslim foe…
Bob Strauss, L.A. Daily News
…A stirring Crusades movie with heroic action and a modern spin that makes the carnage feel almost moral…
Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter
…a mostly lumbering, occasionally rousing epic…
Ty Burr, Boston Globe


College basketball analysts and fans have spent their time since the NCAA Tournament field was announced breaking it down, picking Final Fours and debating who got passed over.
This year, as always there were numerous teams that had a legitimate claim to a spot in the field of 65, but only based on the parameters set forth by the selection committee. For me, that raises a question that I think needs a closer look.
For the NCAA Tournament, should the field be made up of the best 65 teams in the nation, or the 65 that deserve to be there the most?
The selection committee is basically caught in the middle of those two trains of thought, but as long as autobids are a part of the process, the NCAA Tournament will never have the best 65 teams in college basketball. We all know that and, to be honest, I hope it never changes. The most thrilling part of this Tournament is watching the underdogs on the first two full days of play to see who can pull off the big upset. From there, we all start looking for the George Mason, the team that comes from what appears to be nowhere to advance deep into play and maybe even, gasp, the Final Four. To remove these teams from the field would be a crime and an insult to the majority of college basketball players and fans that are involved in Division I. Taking that one step further, making two of these teams play each other two days before everyone else simply to earn the right to get thrashed by a top seed is similarly insulting. But more on that later.
As long as it is understood that we will never see the best 65 teams, why continue the charade of trying to amass the best field possible? Let's start awarding the at-large bids based simply on who has earned it the most over the course of the regular season. How? Simple. Institute one basic and easy-to-enforce rule that will ensure that a team truly merits the honor of a bid...You must finish over .500 in your conference to receive an at-large bid the NCAA Tournament.
If you think about it, that is about as simple as a rule can be, and gets to the heart of who has earned the right to play on. All a team has to do is win all of its home games and steal one on the road (or two or three to make up for any home losses). When you think about it long and hard, is that really so much to ask from a team? Any team that is good enough should actually accomplish this without even batting an eye.
Astonishingly, there are four teams in the field of 65 that did not reach that goal. Arkansas, who went 7-9 in the SEC West and really has no business getting a bid no matter how you look at it (a .500 record won their division, so they weren't even good enough for that - and none of the teams ahead of them are in the field), Michigan State, Georgia Tech and, horror of horrors, Duke all finished at .500 or worse in conference play yet received invitations from the selection committee. Remove those four teams, and all of a sudden, there are spots for Drexel (13-5 in the CAA), <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syracuse (10-6 in the Big East), Kansas State (10-6 in the Big 12) and Missouri State (12-6 in the Missouri Valley). Simple, no?
OK. We know that isn't going to ever be adopted. So, how about this idea: make those eight teams listed above or, if you prefer, the final eight teams under "at-large" consideration, take part in the play-in games instead. This is an idea my friend John Feinstein has suggested on a smaller scale, but let's take it to a level that would make more sense for the NCAA, since it would make them more money (and don't we all know that this is really what all of this is about anyway). Two doubleheaders on Tuesday night for the last four "at-large" spots in the Tournament. Stop insulting the MEACs and NECs of the world (or MAACs, as is the case this season) and give them back that spot in the bracket that they played all season long to earn and that they deserve. Then, clear out the 12-seed line and make those the spots up for grabs, since those are usually among the last four spots filled.
Imagine the possibilities and excitement created by these games. Taking this year's field into account, you would potentially have Drexel playing Arkansas for the spot. Rather than debating it in a boardroom or amongst analysts, let's get it settled on the court, where it should be determined anyway. The field would technically be expanded to 68 teams, which assuages those who would like to see a larger field, and, most importantly, the games will carry weight amongst viewers. Not to insult this year's participants in the "Play In" game, but what do you think would be better to watch - Florida A&M vs. Niagara or Syracuse vs. Illinois?
Over and over, we hear arguments based on numbers and facts. Who beat who? When and where did they play? What conference is a school in? These questions are asked over and over and over again. Then, when the field is announced, a team like Arkansas gets a bid over Drexel, who went 14-5 on the road/neutral, winning games played at tournament teams Villanova and Creighton, plus at fellow snubee, Syracuse. And the reason for this seemingly is because Arkansas plays in the SEC and therefore has a tougher schedule, while Drexel plays in a "lesser" conference, the CAA. I'm not going to get into other teams that have valid arguments, such as the aforementioned Syracuse, because, let's face it, things just ain't changing.
One thing that can't be argued in the debate between Arkansas and Drexel, though, is which team deserved to be there more.


text:
<bill session="110" type="s" number="3461" updated="2009-01-09T19:06:30-05:00">
	<status><introduced date="1221019200" datetime="2008-09-10"/></status>

	<introduced date="1221019200" datetime="2008-09-10"/>
	<titles>
		<title type="short" as="introduced">Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act of 2008</title>
		<title type="official" as="introduced">A bill to evaluate certain certification programs, and for other purposes.</title>
	</titles>
	<sponsor id="300042"/>
	<cosponsors>

	</cosponsors>
	<actions>
		<action date="1221019200" datetime="2008-09-10"><text>Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8277-8278)</text></action>
		<action date="1221019200" datetime="2008-09-10"><text>Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.</text></action>
	</actions>
	<committees>

	</committees>
	<relatedbills>

	</relatedbills>
	<subjects>

	</subjects>
	<amendments>

	</amendments>

	9/10/2008--Introduced.
Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act of 2008 - Directs the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce to: (1) evaluate skills certification programs for employees; (2) rank such programs or determine best practices models for them; and (3) make recommendations on the merits of a unified national approach to such programs, and ways to streamline duplicative and similar programs into a single, widely recognized certification. Requires the Secretaries to post evaluation results on the Internet and make them available to Congress and to interested parties.

</bill>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Earth Day is quickly approaching. To celebrate, Pokemon GO developer Niantic has announced its second annual Earth Day event, which will run from April 13 to April 28 and offer both Pokemon GO and Ingress players a way to do some good while taking part in their favorite augmented reality games.
To encourage players to participate, Niantic will be offering global rewards to both Pokemon GO and Ingress players based on the number of players involved. There are three tiers in all: 2,000, 5,000, and 7,000.
If 2,000 players attend the cleanup, Pokemon GO players will see an increased amount of Ground-type Pokemon. Ingress players will see increased chances of obtaining heatsinks, multihacks, shields, and power cubes.
At 5,000 players, Pokemon GO will offer a Shiny Digglet and increase the appearance of Ground-type Pokemon even more. Ingress will offer players 2x AP linking.
If the cleanup hits the 7,000-player mark, Pokemon Go players will be offered double Stardust and Candy for Event spawns while Ingress players will get double AP fielding.
Last year, Niantic teamed up with Playmob, a gaming-for-good platform, to host 68 events across the world and clean up 6.5 tons of garbage.
This year, Niantic and Playmob have joined forces with 15 non-profit organizations (NGOs) to host even more cleanups, and the companies are inviting all players to participate.
Those interested can sign up to host a group via the Earth Day Clean up website. Players can also sign up individually, to participate solo, by tagging the Niantic Labs Twitter account using the hashtag #AugmentingReality.
Currently, the event's website shows cleanups registered all around the world. Those wanting to participate can use the search option to find events near them.
]]> Gotta Catch All the Litter! Niantic Joins Mission Blue to Host Worldwide Earth Day Cleanups https://www.gameskinny.com/6yewy/gotta-catch-all-the-litter-niantic-joins-mission-blue-to-host-worldwide-earth-day-cleanups https://www.gameskinny.com/6yewy/gotta-catch-all-the-litter-niantic-joins-mission-blue-to-host-worldwide-earth-day-cleanups Thu, 05 Apr 2018 11:58:44 -0400 Zach Hunt
Are you a Pokemon GO Trainer looking to do some good for our planet? If so, you'll be happy to learn that Niantic and The Pokemon Company are joining forces with Playmob, local nonprofits, and NGOs like Mission Blue (dedicated to preserving our oceans and waterways) to host cleanup events this Earth Day. And they need your help!
Stop to consider for a moment that it doesn't really matter how much AR technology improves if the real world onto which those beloved Pokemon are projected is strewn with trash and detritus (which itself sounds kind of like a Pokemon). After all, the thrill of discovering a shiny Murkrow is somewhat tarnished when it pops up in a glob of real-life garbage.
But if that's still not enough to convince you, Niantic is offering some additional incentives. According to the company:
All trainers will receive access to a special avatar item to celebrate Earth Day and those who work together to participate in the cleanups around the world will unlock unique in-game rewards for the entire world. If 1,500 trainers attend the events around the world, 2x catch stardust for ground, water, and grass-type pokémon will be unlocked for 48 hours. If more than 3,000 trainers participate in the clean up events, 3x catch stardust for ground, water, and grass-type pokémon for 48 hours will be unlocked for trainers around the world.
So on April 22, why not do your part to keep this one planet of ours sustainable for future generations? Check out the official Pokemon GO Earth Day Cleanup site to find a cleanup event near you, or you can even help with a financial donation of any amount by visiting Mission Blue's website here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Filmsane
TRAILER OF THE DAY
GIF MOOD
CONTACT FILM CRAZY
Filmsane's friends
How Robin Wright became my hero
Robin Wright became my hero this month. I know you're not supposed to have heroes (I'm a 30 year old woman, and they nearly always let you down), but she did just that. She became my hero. Yesterday the acclaimed actress, director, producer and activist returned to the small screen for the 5-th season of the Netflix show, House Of Cards. All 13 new episodes of Hose Of Cards are available on Netflix, and Wright yet again is credited as director in the last 2 episodes of the 5-th season (despite being lading actress of the Netflix show).
But I'm not here to talk about her accomplishments on screen. More of those off screen to be exact.
In the June issue of Rhapsody Magazine, Wright spoke yet again about her struggle to receive equal pay for playing the cold and calculating First Lady of USA, Claire Underwood, and the impact it had on her career. Since the show's premiere in 2013, she became Golden Globe winner, Emmy nominee, has directed a total of 7 episodes, became executive producer (since the 4-th season) and her character became integral part of the show. An excellent reason for her demands one might say.
During the sit down with Rhapsody Magazine, the actress reminded us of the demand for equal pay she also made public months ago, but she now revealed the disappointment of not being obliged and approved of that. She was later told by the producers that equality in payment is not possible (despite having the same screen time as her co-star Kevin Spacey), but as reported by The Playlist, she was offered additional financial incentives, and lucrative production deal with backers, Media Rights Capital.
It's such a male-dominant workforce still. There's a conditioning,' she said. 'And changing the condition of men is what needs to happen. A reeducation. A new way of thinking. A new philosophy. I think [change] needs to happen in all of these industries, when we're doing the same thing that a man is doing, and we're still getting paid less.' Wright concluded.
Wright is perhaps last in the long list of actresses that are speaking out and demanding equal pay as their male colleagues (Diane Kruger, Jenifer Lawrence, Patricia Arquette, Hillary Swank, Emma Stone to name a few) and while some of them win the gender gap battle (the wonderful and talented Emmy Rossum for instance), it's still an ongoing battle in Hollywood for the rest.
Courtesy of Rhapsody Magazine
Let me tell you something. Wright may lost this battle, but won so many along the way (and became my personal hero in the process). First of all Ive been a fan of her since I saw her in The Princess Bride. Secondly she is perhaps one of the few actresses that have enjoyed steady and quality career both on screen and on TV for the last 3 decades. She and her talent stood the test of time and like very few in Tinseltown she ages like a fine wine. She gets better as time goes by.
But what impressed me about her public demand for equality is her strong will not to conform, bow her head and keep quiet about such an important issue. Some may say that it's best to leave those kinds of issues to the younger generation of actresses, and some may argue that at 51 she's just another victim of Hollywood's notorious ageism, but… au contraire. Not only she's one of the sought after actress working today. Not only she's currently also starring in DC Comics' blockbuster Wonder Woman, she is set to appear in long awaited Blade Runner 2049 at the end of the year. It's her duty to speak up.
You can also argue that she's having a career renascence, but it's not the case at all. She's been the most stable, talented and gorgeous actresses for decades now, it's just this time she's asking to be compensated equally for her efforts. Few years ago I was in the same position as Miss Wright. At my previous work place I demanded to be paid equally, and like her my offer was declined. I know the feeling of defeat all too well, but she became my hero just for trying and speaking out. She tried, she failed but she opened so many opportunities for so many other actresses to come. She blazed a trail not for the women in the acting profession but for women everywhere in every other industry. I hope that so many other women after Robin Wright will no longer be afraid to ask for equality in the workplace, and just by that she became my new personal hero.
House of Cards season five is on Netflix now.
And hell yeah…. You certainly can have heroes at 30…
Tagshouse of cardsrobin wright
New Rough Night green band trailer teases ...
Idris and Kate are stranded in The ...
Frank Underwood Is Dead And Gone… But So Is Kevin ...
By filmsane
Yes Netflix! Doug Stamper is a great character for a ...
Filmsane is for all the film buffs, TV and film addicts and geeks like myself. Originally created to be cinematic escape from reality, Filmsane is just a basic trial and error outlet to a journalist from South-Eastern Europe (with English as a second language).
Everything that is worth mentioning in the art form called film, cool details and fun film stuff from the present and the past is probably going to be in my blog. So, about all of the mistakes I'll probably make in the future- forgive me, but for all the stuff you can find here…
I truly hope you'll enjoy Filmsane.
Do We Really Need More Sex And The City?
There Are No Small Parts… Just Dumb Poorly Written Ones
Rebooting True Blood Is A Really Bad Idea


Do you want help to sort out fact from fiction when it comes to nutrition and health?
Dieticians at Monash University are running a free on-line nutrition course, called "Food as Medicine."
It's a course designed for anyone with an interest in food, nutrition and health, and run by actual, qualified dieticians, not someone who is trying to market the latest "superfood" or supplement.
It starts this coming Monday, so if you're going to sign up, be quick.


text:
Lola Van Wagenen (born December 12, 1938) is an American historian and activist. In 1970, she co-founded Consumer Action Now (CAN), a non-profit educational organization, and in 1995 co-founded Clio Visualizing History, Inc. to promote history education. (In 2003, Clio changed its corporate structure becoming a not-for-profit organization providing educational films and online history exhibits and resources.)

Biography
Van Wagenen was born in Provo, Utah, in December 1938.  She was raised in a Mormon family, but as an adult has explored other sources of religious and philosophical thought.

She met her first husband, actor Robert Redford, in Los Angeles in 1957. They were married on September 12, 1958, in Provo, Utah, following a secret wedding a few months earlier in Las Vegas, Nevada.  They divorced in 1985. The couple had four children.

Van Wagenen received her bachelor's degree at Vermont College in 1982 and her master's degree in Public History at New York University  (NYU) in 1984.  Ten years later she completed her Ph.D. in American History at NYU. Her doctoral dissertation was published as a book, Sister-Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage 1870–1896, in 2003. In October 2012 she received the Distinguished Alumni/Alumnae Achievement Award from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at NYU.

She married George Burrill, Ph.D., the founder of the international development firm ARD, on July 17, 2002, in Shelburne, Vermont. Burrill is the Honorary Consul from New Zealand to Vermont. He was a US delegate to the United States New Zealand Partnership Forum in 2011, held in Christchurch, New Zealand, when a devastating earthquake struck the city. After his return to Vermont, the couple organized a successful fundraiser that netted over $70,000 for earthquake recovery programs. Van Wagenen serves on the Robertson Scholars selection committee, which grants scholarships to international students at Duke University and University of North Carolina. The couple established the New American Scholarship Fund at Champlain College in 2012.

Since the 1970s, Van Wagenen has served on the Board of Directors or in other capacities with various charitable organizations, including Shelburne Farms, the Vermont Historical Society and the New York Women's Foundation. She served on the Task Force on Appropriate Technology with the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment in 1977. In 1979 she was a member of the National Commission on the International Year of the Child.

Professional career

Van Wagenen first received public attention as the wife of actor Robert Redford. In her own right, she was an executive producer of several films, including Miss America: A Documentary Film, broadcast on the PBS series American Experience in January 2002, and The State of Marriage, released in 2015.

Her publications include the book Sister-Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage 1870- 1896  and the article "In Their Own Behalf: The Politicization of Mormon Women and the 1870 Franchise".

Activism
In 1970, as Lola Redford, she co-founded Consumer Action Now (CAN), a not-for-profit educational organization in New York City, and served as co-chair for 10 years. The group included Ilene  (Jones) Goldman (then-wife of screenwriter William Goldman), author Linda Stewart (who acted as editor and a major writer of the CAN monthly newsletter), Cynthia (Burke) Stein, author Irmgard Hunt, and a dozen other women. CAN established a variety of consumer-oriented and environmental education programs aimed at showing consumers how their buying habits affected the environment.

For more than a decade, she promoted CAN's goals through a series of public speaking engagements, including local and national television shows. In 1972, she organized the Environmental Action Forum, a gathering for consumer and environmental activists; the event was hosted by Betty Furness and featured speakers from a variety of environmental and civic organizations. Van Wagenen organized CAN's political action council, which lobbied for passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (both passed in 1976).

The CAN Newsletter was published monthly from 1970 to 1973, covering different consumer education subjects in each issue. Van Wagenen wrote articles or conducted research for each issue and worked to expand the circulation, which reached readers nationwide.

From 1975 to 1977, Van Wagenen developed The Sun Fund as a tool for raising awareness of energy conservation and alternative energy sources. The project included the Solar Energy Slide Show, which was the basis for The Solar Film, a 1980 Academy Award Nominee for  Best Live Action Short Film.

In 1978, she organized SunDay in New York, a three-day nationally televised educational and environmental celebration that began with a sunrise ceremony at the United Nations and included events sponsored by New York Institute of Technology and the U.S. Small Business Administration. Speakers at various SunDay events included Margaret Mead, Dr. Barry Commoner, Pete Seeger and Amory Lovins.

In 1979 and 1980, Van Wagenen organized the Women's Energy Education Project, coordinating with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Energy to publish Women Tapping a New Resource for Energy, Women's Energy Handbook, and Women's Energy Toolkit.

In 1979, she received an Honorary Doctorate in Science from the Pratt Institute for promoting energy conservation and increased use of renewable energy resources.

Film and website production
After completing her Ph.D. in American history in 1995, Van Wagenen and historian Jeanne Houck cofounded Clio Visualizing History, Inc., intending to bring American history to a broad public audience. As   executive producer for the   documentary film Miss America: A Documentary Film, for PBS   American Experience, Van Wagenen obtained funding for the project from The National Endowment for the Humanities. However, her subsequent film projects received only partial funding or none; a film proposal called Catching the Shadow: America's First Women Photographers received a scripting grant from the NEH, but other proposals, such as The Battle of the Sexes: Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs, were eventually shelved.

Smaller educational projects were more successful, as Clio provided research and production services for clients such as McGraw-Hill, The Asia Society and City Lore. Productions included CD-ROMs to accompany textbooks, web-based interactive materials, and an interactive kiosk.

In 2003 Jeanne Houck departed and Van Wagenen reorganized Clio's corporate structure, changing it to a not-for-profit educational organization. Research materials gathered for the film proposal Catching the Shadow: America's First Women Photographers were adapted for use in online exhibits about Frances Benjamin Johnston and Mary and Frances Allen. Clio developed an interactive online version of Gregory Pfizer's book Picturing the Past: Illustrated Histories and the American Imagination, 1840-1900, and produced "Quilts as Visual History," researched by Jennifer Reeder, then at George Mason University.

Clio's recent projects offer more videos and interactive elements. "Lowell Thomas and Lawrence of Arabia: Making a Legend, Creating History," was a collaboration between Van Wagenen and filmmaker Rick Moulton. The exhibit features archival photos, audio clips, and a short film, presenting a variety of viewpoints on journalist Lowell Thomas and military officer T.E. Lawrence. Van Wagenen's newest project for Clio's website is titled "Click! The Ongoing Feminist Revolution," a collaboration with Susan Ware, Melanie Gustafson and Marilyn Blackwell. This exhibit highlights the collective action and individual achievements of women from the 1940s to the present, and features 46 film clips (taken from 27 documentary films), extensive interactive timelines, essays and photos.

While directing her online projects, Van Wagenen also served as executive producer on two films: Lowell Thomas: The American Storyteller by Rick Moulton (in production), and The State of Marriage by Jeff Kaufman (released in 2015).

References

External links
Lola Van Wagenen Biography

21st-century American historians
American environmentalists
American women environmentalists
1938 births
Writers from Provo, Utah
Living people
American women historians
21st-century American women writers

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Broadband expansion project moving along
Brooke Hinzman
ELKINS — Broadband internet expansion began to lay its foundation in East Dailey this week.
During the most recent Randolph County Development Authority meeting, progress on the current broadband expansion project was discussed. The project would bring broadband internet access to outlying parts of the county.
"We currently have the East Dailey tower scheduled to start construction… I believe the equipment will be mobilized on Monday, and we'll start digging the foundation for that tower on Tuesday," said Robbie Morris, executive director of the Randolph County Development Authority.
Weather abiding, the construction is estimated to last for a three-week period.
"I would hope that internet service in the Dailey region of the county would be greatly improved by the end of July at the latest," said Morris.
Morris also spoke at the most recent Randolph County Commission meeting.
"The Community Connect grant that we received a couple of years ago, we are now in the implementation stage," Morris said. "The first tower was put up in Mabie. The last report I had, there were 44 subscribers to the service in Mabie, which is a pretty decent home count for that region of the county."
Morris noted the next tower was going up in East Dailey this week. He said he believed the next tower "would be on Rich Mountain, in the not-too-distant future."
Also starting this week, "the second round of construction contracts will begin advertising. That will bring an additional tower to Cassidy, to the south side of Beverly, and then I think that pretty much rounds out the first phase of towers for the county.
"We have another one that we're looking at that was approved in that grant in Ellamore, but we're having trouble with site location for that," Morris said.
Commission President Mark Scott noted, "If anyone owns property on a hill in Ellamore, please let us know."
"Yes, please contact my office," Morris said.
The Randolph County Development Authority can be contacted at 304-637-0803.