Watch The Crusades For Free

A Masterpiece!

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

This loosely told story of the Crusades isn't so bad historically, if one allows for this one "crusade" to represent a total summation of all the Crusades, probably de Mille's goal.But while de Mille gives a fairly accurate portrayal of some historical characters (if one reads between the lines), he gives a totally bizarre portrayal of their personal lives that could not possibly be believed.First, the few things that make sense. Richard was not a "Christian", and de Mille shows this. He gave the usual lip service, but he represented the "mercantile" endeavors of those who used the papal promises for their own ends. The pope made the mistake of granting Richard rule over all Christians in the conquered lands. What this led to was Richard simply slaughtering any person who wasn't guaranteed to be under his rule, which meant non Christians.This was the savagery of the Crusades. It had nothing to do with religion, but of men taking advantage of religion. In a subtle way, de Mille does show this.Saladin was well depicted. Despite what critics say, he was one of the more benevolent of warriors, which isn't saying a lot, but if you were captured by a Moslem force, you would rather it be by Saladin than most others. He could be reasoned with. if nothing else, you could convert to Islam and be spared by him.The business with the sneaky European who Saladin killed is derived from another instance, well chronicled, dealing with a man whose evil was not nearly as "Mickey Mouse" as this villain, and who would've tried any person's patience. he was the terrorist of the era, and Saladin offered the cup of safety to everyone he captured but this man. The incident is depicted fairly faithfully in the modern epic "Kingdom of Heaven".de Mille simply combines all the events into one main event, and that's fair poetic license. Certainly closer to the truth than "Tombstone" is of Wyatt Earp and the Clantons.The personal lives are laughably unbelievable. King Richard comes across as gay (and he probably was gay or bisexual), resisting romance with the gorgeous princess of France, spurning her, and then later becoming enchanted with a very homely princess of another land. Loretta Young looks her worst for this. She is figuratively the ugly step sister, and we see the hand of women in the making of this to be a chick flick, where the homely girl gets the romance and the pretty girl is out in the cold. Nice fantasy for the female wallflowers, but men had to be shaking their heads at this, particularly when Saladin falls for the pale homely girl, when we know how beautiful Arabian women are. Loretta is not usually this plain. Her hair looks pitifully bland, but we have to remember this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood has always pushed the "blonde woman" look in heir chick flicks to appease the female audience.We get a lot of ho hum, no risk, same old stuff. The nice guys all die, of course, true to Hollywood clichés. The hero has to start off as a creep, and actually he's a total monster, but de Mille does some clever snake oil soft soap to make us think he isn't a monster.It's easily one of de Mille's worst works. But we see some of the skills that made de Mille great later. de Mille knew how to make a logical sequence of events, how to cut and edit, the importance and timing of comic relief. he was still in the experimental stage on his total skills, but we see a hint of them here.

Having witnessed the flop of his last few contemporary dramatic pictures, Cecil B. DeMille made a pledge to the public that from now on he would only make epics. True to his word, he strove to make each successive picture more stupendous than the last. He had made some very effective shoestring epics in the poverty-stricken early 30s, but by 1935 the worst of the depression was over and DeMille could at last be reunited with the big budget.While DeMille had proved on Sign of the Cross (1932) and Cleopatra (1934) that he could make a big picture without masses of extras or impressive sets, he certainly knows how to make the most of those assets when he does have them. It is in The Crusades that we see the development of the style of presentation that he employed for all his subsequent epics. Rather than bombard us with the colossal, he likes to gradually reveal the vastness of a place by slowly and smoothly pulling the camera back. During these moves he usually has an extra or two move horizontally across the frame at a similar pace to the camera, giving the manoeuvre extra grace and momentum. Then there are the battle scenes, tense and frenzied creations of Anne Bauchen's superb editing. These are similar to the ones in Cleopatra, but far more effective, not because of the higher production values, but because the shots are held for longer and their sequencing is better timed.And while DeMille clearly loves the massive crowd shot, he has enough sense to shrink the space and simplify the setting when it comes to key dialogue scenes. Compared to the busy outdoor locations many of the interiors are quite plain, which helps to focus us entirely on the actors, their expressions and their words. The transitions to these dramatic moments are often very smooth, with the drop of a tent flap or simply a change of angle to frame the actors against a bare wall. DeMille was an expert in turning the spectacle on and off, as it were, according to the demands of the narrative.Given the above, it's a pity that, like most DeMille pictures of this era, The Crusades is dramatically rather weak. The dialogue is bland, and most of the characters are lazily-written stereotypes. In the early scenes, there seems to have been this attempt to cram in as many "Olde Englande" accessories as possible, with a cheeky minstrel, a burly blacksmith, the king and his court all hanging out together. Mind you, there is at least a fairly decent character arc in that King Richard is portrayed as a kind of medieval cad who joins the crusade for ulterior motives, but is eventually humbled by his experiences. It's also a refreshingly mature approach to make Saladin an honourable foe, although there is of course still the obligatory moustachioed villain in the form of some anachronistic minor king (played by Joseph Schildkraut, naturally).After having suffered Henry Wilcoxon's wooden turn as Mark Anthony in Cleopatra, it's a major disappointment to see him again in a leading role. You might wonder why DeMille so persistently cast amateurs like Wilcoxon, until you realise he selected players primarily for their physicality, their talent being of secondary concern. In this light it makes sense for Wilcoxon, with his prominent brow and broad shoulders, to play a king. And although Joseph Schildkraut was, as it happens, a very good actor, DeMille repeatedly cast him as these Judas figures because of his thin face and piercing eyes.But this is DeMille. Script and cast will always play second fiddle to the director's showmanship. Despite all the baloney and anachronism, his visual style is on top form here. The Crusades is like a stained-glass window in a church. It will not reach us on an emotional, human level, but it is full of grace and majesty. Yes, DeMille is often called a Victorian moralist, but in his presentation and imagery he was practically medieval. And we should forgive him, because he did it so well.

Having seen Ridley Scott's 'Kingdom of Heaven' and returned to my 12C passions, I decided to check this out (having seen it on TV many years ago). How I survived it without smashing the tape is a miracle. What appeal the film has is in the realms of kitsch/high camp - as unwitting, twisted comedy, for which I'm giving it 5/10. 'Kingdom' is gratuitously a-historical, but this is just as bad, if not worse in some ways. At least I could sort-of recognise three or four characters in 'Kingdom'. What particularly outraged my chivalric instincts was the script's character-assassination of Conrad, King of Jerusalem - over and above the physical Assassination he suffered in 1192. Imagine Sir Walter Scott's 'The Talisman' spliced with Maurice Hewlett's 'The Life & Death of Richard Yea-and-Nay'. Add to this some 'romance novelette' clichés: the rivalry between blonde, angelic Berengaria and dark, worldly Alice; Berengaria torn between Saladin and Richard; her rôle in reforming and redeeming her selfish, irreligious husband. The religious ethos is a Victorian Protestant Sunday School version of mediæval spirituality (just as un-period as 'Kingdom''s easy-going 21C goodwill to all, which Berengaria prefigures when she pleads for peace between Richard and Saladin). Richard's England is depicted as a bucolic, jolly place, the 19C fantasy of 'Merrie England', and as his main home: in fact, he spent very little time there, being essentially a Frenchman. There are also hints of 19C exotic-erotic Orientalism: right at the start we see beautiful Christian maidens and a middle-aged nun being sold at a slave-market in Jerusalem. Visually, there are some striking scenes, by the standards of 1930s cinematography and special effects: the siege of Acre, a cavalry charge. But the film is rather more character-driven than some of DeMille's other epics, and the characters are the weak link.Alan Hale does his jovial minstrel/Allan-a-Dale act as Blondel, performing music-hall songs that more closely resemble the œuvre of Eric Idle's minstrel in 'Monty Python & the Holy Grail' ('The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin') than the melodic output of the Lord of Nesle. Ian Keith's too-youthful Saladin is more Boston Brahmin than Kurd. According to DeMille, Frederick Barbarossa did make it on Crusade alive (!!!), as did William II of Sicily, and Russians and Norwegians were there, too. However, there's no sign of Guy de Lusignan, Queen Sibylla, or any of the other resident Frankish nobility anywhere! But what struck me most forcibly was the misrepresentation of Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat and King of Jerusalem (c 1145-92), one of the era's most dashing and tragic heroes. This is a result of the Romantic 19C cult of Richard 'the Lionheart' which Walter Scott did so much to foster and on which DeMille was clearly raised.Conrad is played by Josef Schildkraut as a sleekit, sinister, weedy and somewhat camp schemer, with a bizarre chevron haircut and matching helmet. (The Byzantine chronicler Choniates, who knew him, described him as handsome, courageous, intelligent and strong.) As in Hewlett's novel, he is introduced lurking furtively around Philippe's court in France when the Crusade is preached. In reality, this indomitable, dynamic Piemontese warrior had been defending Tyre - one of the last major cities in Frankish hands - since July 1187, without Western support. His envoy, Archbishop Josias of Tyre (not a simple Peter the Hermit-like 'Holy Man', as played by C. Aubrey Smith), was the source of the appeals that launched the Third Crusade. Conrad saved the remnant of the Latin Kingdom pretty much single-handed, and was lauded as the "Marqués valens e pros" by troubadours such as Peirol and Bertran de Born. Even the Arab chronicler Ibn al-Athir acknowledged him as a man of "extraordinary courage", as well as a sharp political operator. You would not suspect this from DeMille's depiction. The film also shows him on a visit to England, conspiring with John to kill Richard so that John and Philippe will make him King of Jerusalem. This is arrant nonsense: John had no part in the politics of the Latin Kingdom. We see nothing of the dispute for the throne with Guy de Lusignan, whom Richard was supporting (hence the understandable antipathy). Finally, Conrad is summarily murdered off-screen by Saladin's men for offering to have Richard killed if he will make him King. (Again, this is loosely derived from Maurice Hewlett.) In fact, he was mortally wounded by Assassins (Nizari Isma'ili), days after he was elected King by the barons of the Kingdom. His pregnant widow Queen Isabella was married off to Richard's nephew a week later. Richard is a major suspect in the murder, but again, one would never guess from this film. Essentially, this characterisation is derived from Scott's 'The Talisman' - a Gothic novel-era racist stereotype of 'sneaky, cowardly and effete Italian' - with elements from Maurice Hewlett. Peire Vidal, who dedicated songs to Conrad's siblings Boniface and Azalaïs, might justly have railed against the scriptwriters as "fals lauzengiers desleials". Conrad's real Assassination was tragic enough; his posthumous cinematic character-assassination is undeserved, and leaves a particularly nasty taste.

Cecil B. DeMille's spectacles were mostly bound to America and Americans for most of the silent film period into the early talkies. His exceptions were the original "Ten Commandments" (but there was a modern story set in America as well as the tale of Moses), and "King of Kings" where he told the story of Jesus's Ministry. Then, in 1933, he decided to do movies that dealt with the history of the ancient world. First came "Sign of the Cross" in 1933 and then "Cleopatra" in 1934. Both were in the Roman Empire, and both allowed DeMille ample scope to be lascivious and tantalizing about sex, and yet be moralistic as well (especially in "Sign of the Cross"). Both had Claudette Colbert in them in the female lead (shared in "Sign of the Cross" with Elissa Landi). "Sign" had Charles Laughton and Frederic March in the leads. But "Cleopatra" only had Henry Wilcoxon and Warren Williams as the leads. Still both films were very successful.DeMille seems to have planned to tap European and Middle Eastern history for awhile. His next historical pageant is "The Crusades" which, while an entertaining film (none of his films are less than entertaining) is not as good as the first two. It is actually telling the story of the Third Crusade of 1190 - 92, and (although lauded in some of these comments as being historically accurate) it doesn't really go into it too well. The third crusade was led by Richard the Lion Hearted (King Richard I of England), King Philippe Augustus of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarosa. Now the movie does show Philippe at the initial planning stages, and Richard soon getting involve. But aside from an occasional mention of Barbarosa, and one or two brief glimpses of an actor as the Emperor, his character is never developed. Frederick Barbarosa was a lead player in this crusade, and he drowned trying to ford a stream during the early part of it. This was a real tragedy for the European invaders, as Frederick had been umpiring the constant arguments between Philippe and Richard (neither of whom liked each other). None of that is in the film.To fully appreciate this film (flaws and all) watch it first after seeing "Becket" and then "The Lion in Winter". Those two films tell the story of Richard Plantagenet's daddy and mommy, Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry II had built up his kingdom and power, despite problems from his old friend Thomas a'Becket. Most of the power was due to the inheritance of Eleanor in France, which was her dowry. Eleanor had been Queen of France briefly, but divorced King Louis and took her property with her. Henry was in a very good position to dominate King Louis and his son Philippe. But (from "The Lion in Winter") you will remember that Philippe tells off Henry that time is on his side - Henry is going to die soon, and Philippe is young. Philippe was also very sly. He was more interested in getting Richard into the Crusade so to weaken the English government, and allow Philippe to make incursions into Eleanor's power base. And it worked like a charm. Once Barbarosa was dead, Philippe took advantage of the first argument with Richard to take his men back to France. Soon he was in touch with Richard's brother, Prince John, who was regent for the king. John soon makes arrangements to keep Richard from ever coming home again. At this point I'd suggest you see "The Adventures of Robin Hood" followed by "Robin and Marion" to see the return of Richard and the end of his lamentably bad reign.DeMille hints at the political skulduggery. Note the business between Conrad of Montsarrat (the potential King of Jerusalem) and John. But John is made to be the mainspring of these conspiracies. That he was involved there is not doubt, but Philippe was the real key to them.There is also another issue, touched on in "The Lion In Winter" but dropped here - DeMille would never have discussed it in the context of a hero. Richard I was gay. His marriage to Berengaria was not a love match (although made one here and in the later film "King Richard and the Crusaders" based on Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman"). So on that part the film is not accurate. The battle for Acre was very bloody, but the worst part of it (which Arab historians have bristled about for centuries - British ones tended to ignore it) were the massacres of Arab (and Jewish) citizens at Acre. Somewhere over 30,000 (at least) were killed. This atrocity was sort of dropped from the movie.The acting is good, and some of the scenes quite fascinating: the marriage by proxy of Berengaria and Richard (represented by his friend the minstrel Blondel); The literal horse (or cattle) trading by the King of Navarre for his daughter to get married is funny. Especially moving is a scene where Richard sees his old friend, the blacksmith, die after a fight with the Saracens. "The Crusades" was a box office flop. DeMille (for the next 15 years) made films about American History, beginning with "The Plainsman". Only in 1949 did the old world beckon again with "Samson and Delilah". And his final masterpiece, the second "Ten Commandments", would be his picture of ancient Egypt.