and
The Appropriate Tune: "Saladin", by Dislocated Flowers
The Crusades were a series of holy wars sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church that occurred off and on from the year 1095 until roughly 1291. While purportedly a campaign to safeguard the city of Jerusalem, which if you know Christians is pretty important, in reality it was a convenient excuse for the feudal monarchies of Europe to expand into new territories and thus new avenues of wealth. Strange I know, in this day and age the idea of a foreign country invading the Middle East for material gain is completely unbelievable, but you have to remember this was a more primitive time. Undemocratic governments, out-of-touch warhawks in seats of power, they even had horrific plagues that killed thousands of people! Almost a thousand years later it’s good to know that we’ve progressed as a species.
Alien though they may seem, the Crusades are certainly no strangers when it comes to pop culture. There has been a countless amount of art dedicated to events in or around those times, but generally speaking much of the art that we in the West have been exposed to has been from the perspective of the Crusaders, rather than those who were being crusaded against. With the advent of film and its spread across the world however there is a chance to redress that imbalance, and it wouldn’t be the Marathon if we didn’t take chances. That this film was made in Egypt, a country we have yet to cover in our world tour of cinema, was also a factor. New experiences, taking risks, that’s what this blog is about.
Released in 1963 through Lotus Film, Saladin, Saladin the Victorious or Saladin and the Great Crusades was directed by Youssef Chahine and written by Chahine, Mohammed Abdel Gawad, Abderrahman Charkawi and Youssef El Sebai, based on a novel by Naguib Mahfouz. A historical drama, the film reenacts the events leading up to and including the Third Crusade. Upon learning of the treatment of Arabs in the Levant, Saladin (played by Ahmed Mazhar), Sultan of Egypt and founder of the Ayyubid Dynasty decides to lead a military campaign to liberate the city of Jerusalem from European control, at which they eventually succeed. This however doesn’t go over well with the folk running the place, in this case the lovely Virginia, wife of the warmongering Renaud, and so she heads off to Europe in order to gain support for a return expedition. Which she does, in the form of Richard the Lion-Heart, Philip Auguste and the other rulers of the continent. The stage is set for round 3 of Holy War and all the cards seem to be in favor of the Crusaders, but is the dream of a Jerusalem by and for Arabs nothing but a pipe dream? Or can Saladin snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? Watch this movie and find out. Or, you know, read a history book. Your call.
While the historical epic is not an uncommon sight in cinema, i believe they really started to kick into high gear after the success of Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 film The Ten Commandments. Big open vistas, big battle scenes with hundreds of actors, a big cast who make big speeches at big dramatic moments all told with a big runtime and probably being filmed in a desert. The Italian sports car of cinema basically, made to show off just as much as it was to tell a story. Saladin is of that wave, and indeed attempts are made to make it look as grand as possible, which I think Chahine and crew largely succeed at. The battles are perhaps not as elaborate as one might expect out of a film that’s literally about a military conflict, but they do set people on fire so I can forgive a bit of shadowplay.
It’s a lovely package, but as a historical drama it seems to bypass history in favor of romanticism. Reducing a war of imperial conquest to the actions of one devious woman is a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the Crusades, reducing motivations down to simple greed or vainglorious idiocy and waves over events that they find inconvenient to the narrative, such as Richard’s invasion of Byzantium prior to his arrival at Jerusalem. This goes for our protagonists as well. While the rather obvious moral of Arab people should control Arab land in the film is certainly agreeable, I think it’s not only incorrect but irresponsible to portray Saladin’s involvement in Jerusalem as some sort of saintly obligation to help the poor and downtrodden. Saladin was a Sultan, a dynastic ruler whose caliphate stretched across Egypt and into Mesopotamia and Syria, and somehow I doubt that rule was based on being such a guy. Saladin’s motivations for liberating Jerusalem were ultimately not that dissimilar from the European kings, and while the Arabs of Jerusalem might indeed have generally been better off with Saladin (certain classes of Arabs at least, it’s arguable whether the downtrodden would have noticed the difference between one master or the other), the film’s idealistic tone only serves to muddy whatever good intentions the filmmakers might have had.
This is made more obvious perhaps in the choice of characterization, which features Saladin and his commanders as morally upright, saintly figures who can do wrong and the Crusaders are stupid and/or comically evil (except for the women who are wilting daisies and submissive, except for the outspoken one who is of course evil). Again, there’s nothing wrong with portraying the Crusaders negatively and Saladin’s forces positively in this instance, but it’s to a point where you’re more engaged with the Crusader side of things because its more dynamic than the protagonists. Like they try to pull a Romeo and Juliet arc with Saladin’s commander Issa and female Crusader Louisa but it’s like...they had maybe 2 scenes together, and he’s sad that she won’t consent to be his POW wife? Then they try to push some drama midway through by killing off Saladin’s son, but it’s like...did this guy even have dialogue? Did Saladin even interact with his son more than once? Why would I care if this character I’ve had no time with got killed off? Ahmed Mazhar does a great job at projecting an air of authority, you can easily believe that he’s a leader of men, but so much of the film is centered around telling us how wise and great and amazing Saladin is you half expect him to start walking on water and turning water into wine. In a movie called Saladin, supposedly about Saladin, why is it that Richard Lion-Heart is the more compelling and emotionally complex character? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
In the end I find myself more conflicted about Saladin than I’ve been for any movie in a while. It certainly is a spectacle, and I might have recommended it based on that, but in spite of that I found the story to be rather simplistic up until maybe the last act and because of that I ended up losing the thread several times. Which is why this review is kind of shitty; The three hours burnt me out and I found myself lacking the inspiration more so than usual. So even though this is unprecedented for the Marathon, I think Saladin doesn’t get the recommendation. There are no doubt other historical epics, and other Egyptian films, that will satisfy you this Halloween. And no, the Brendan Fraser Mummy movie doesn’t count.
Man this year fucking sucked, didn’t it? I tried starting work on the Marathon early this year to get ahead of the curve a bit, but then real life came around and ruined that plan completely. This year’s list did turn out pretty though, and we did close the book on the original Star Trek and Planet of the Apes series, so we did manage to accomplish something in the end. I suppose now the only question is whether I’m going to have the drive to finish up the rest of the Reelin’ In the Years movies, or am I going to avoid all movies for a couple months as usual? Either way I need a break, so I’ll see you all when I see you.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment