“Kingdom of Heaven”

Kingdom of Heaven

Kemarin saya menonton film [“Kingdom of Heaven”](http://imdb.com/title/tt0320661/) di [Citos](http://www.21cineplex.com/theater/detil.cfm?ID=199&name=CILANDAK&city=3). Sebelumnya saya ragu untuk menonton film ini karena pada umumnya film-film barat cenderung anti Muslim, apalagi film ini bertemakan [Perang Salib](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade) yang merupakan konflik terbuka antara Islam dan Kristen pada abad pertengahan. Tetapi di lain pihak, saya sangat menyukai film-film kolosal. Setelah menonton film ini saya sangat terkejut karena ternyata film ini sangat berhasil untuk menyajikan konflik Perang Salib tanpa berat sebelah (paling tidak menurut standar saya).

Film ini menceritakan suasana pada [Perang Salib kedua](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Crusade). Pada saat itu pihak Kristen yang menguasai [Jerusalem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) sedang dalam suasana damai dengan pihak Islam. Tetapi di lain pihak ada beberapa orang dari pihak Kristen yang mencoba memprovokasi perang dengan pihak Islam.

Tokoh utama pada film ini adalah [Balian dari Ibelin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin), salah seorang dari pihak Kristen yang menghendaki perdamaian dengan pihak Islam yang dipimpin oleh [Saladin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin). Film ini berusaha untuk adil, ada protagonis dan antagonis di pihak Kristen dan Islam. Protagonis adalah orang-orang yang menghendaki perdamaian, sedangkan antagonisnya adalah orang-orang yang mencoba untuk menyulut permusuhan.

Walaupun demikian saya melihat *character development* tokoh antagonis dari pihak Islam sangatlah minim. Dalam ingatan saya hanya ada satu *scene* tentang ini dan menurut saya terlalu mengada-ada. Mungkin karena sang sutradara kesulitan untuk mencari tokoh dalam sejarah yang pantas berada dalam posisi ini, tetapi sutradara tetap menginginkan netralitas dalam film ini. Karena hal ini mungkin ada beberapa penonton yang beragama Kristen berpendapat bahwa film ini lebih memihak kepada Islam.

Simbol-simbol perdamaian kerap kali dikedepankan di film ini secara berulang-ulang, bahkan menurut saya terlalu dipaksakan: Muslim yang melakukan shalat di pelabuhan Messina; suasana damai antara Islam, Kristen dan Yahudi di Jerusalem; orang Kristen yang mengucapakan salam Islam dan sebagainya. Mungkin sang sutradara menyadari bahwa film ini bisa menjadi sumber konflik bagi pihak-pihak tertentu dan pemuatan simbol-simbol ini diharapkan untuk menjadi pereda bagi pihak-pihak tersebut. Sepanjang film ini sangat terlihat usaha dari pembuat film untuk tidak memihak pihak tertentu.

Saya tidak ingin bahasan saya ini menjadi *spoiler*, untuk itu saya sudahi saja sampai di sini :). Tapi yang jelas anda tidak akan antipati terhadap film ini, apapun agama anda.

**Tambahan**:

* walaupun film berlatarbelakang historis, tapi jangan harapkan penceritaan sejarah yang akurat. Pada film ini, saya lihat ada beberapa hal yang tidak sesuai sejarah seperti yang saja baca di Wikipedia
* Jay menulis [sejarah dari Saladin](http://yulian.firdaus.or.id/2005/04/21/sholahuddin-al-ayyubi/) dalam Bahasa Indonesia

45 comments

  1. Hm… jadi inget sama game Age of Empires II. Skenario Saladin-nya digarap bener – bener bagus dan seimbang (walaupun ternyata ada misinterpretasi tentang jihad) but it’s okay lah.

    Kudu nonton… *bersiap – siap ke pasar kembang [bandung]*

  2. bisnis is bisnis, agama makin tak laku di eropa, jadi agar film ini laku ya jangan memusuhi muslim yg nyata jadi konsumen besar pasar eropa.

    ini logika kapitalis, dan bukan konteks religi. meski, memang bagus juga.

    kalo movie indonesia malah merusak sana sini, kampanye homoseksual, kampanye ciuman, gombal brengsek itu para sineas indonesia.

    sinetron dan acara reality show juga gombal, mohon maaf saya hanya suka Metro TV punya orang Aceh itu, dan kangen sama TVRI dg Warta Berita dan Dunia Dalam Beritanya.

  3. kalo gak seimbang dibilang berpihak, menjelek-jelekkan pihak lain… kalo seimbang dibilang bisnis, kapitalis, nyari untung… *sigh*.

    emang susah bikin film itu, apalagi kalau belum apa-apa sudah dituduh atau dicurigai yang gak-gak. enak memang menilai pekerjaan orang lain dari subjektivitas sendiri. yah, resiko pekerjaan sineas kali ya, mau membuat yang terbaik malah dituduh macam-macam b-)

  4. “sang sutradara” yg disebut-sebut adalah Ridley Scott, seorang director biasanya kalo udah punya style ga akan jauh2x satu film dengan film lainnya. jadi sbg komparasi Gladiator, Black Hawk Down dll. /:)

  5. Buat bang Enda (#8), itu Black Hawk Down film terbagus yg pernah saya tonton. Terasa nyata dan masuk akal. Gue usul mbok iyao sineas Indonesia bikin film yg melibatkan orang Maluku, atau kawan indonesia timor lain. Tuh orang irian,masak ngggak pernah dikasih kesempatan main film. Buat bang Rano Karno, bikin film atau sinetron yg bertema indonesia dunk…biar kita makin ok..

  6. adegan waktu saladin ama king jews berdamai emang bagus sekali.. damai emang indah , tapi kenapa yahudi palestina laknat itu gak bisa diajak damai .. :-w

  7. :d memang film yang bagus, dan semoga bisa membawa perdamaian. Buat #11, saat ini Israel dengan Palestina sedang berusaha untuk menempuh jalan damai bukan? :)>-

  8. bagusan mana sama Janji Jojon Janji Jhonny ? :D

    #12 Perdamaian tarik-ulur maksudnya? I don’t think so, as long as there’s zionism inside..

    *I have to use Win$ XP too.. :(*

  9. #11: itu bukan king jews, tapi raja kingdom of jerusalem yang pro kristen. di film ini saya gak lihat atribut-atribut yahudi (atau sayanya gak nyadar ya?), satu-satunya yahudi disebut adalah waktu anak buah balian bilang kalau yang tinggal di tanahnya adalah orang-orang Islam, Kristen dan Yahudi.

  10. #11: kaum Yahudi (keturunan Bani Israil) sudah ditakdirkan bebal, genius, pintar, cerdik, pandai dsb, jadi nggak usah heran.

  11. aduh … saya lagi sibuk liat film bangsal 13, yonky sibuk nraktir cewek nonton janji joni .. pacar saya minta dicarikan full house serial drama korea … pusiiiiiiiing :((

  12. Menurut gue, semua film Amrik itu Munafik. Buktinya umat islam di Irak, di Afganistand, dan bentar lagi mungkin Iran di bunuh….:-w

  13. weh udah keburu diposting ma priyadi. Aku juga nonton Passion of the Christ yang heboh itu. Ternyata ya ngga ada apa-apanya. Ngga tega aja liat berdarah-darah. Apalagi ini ya…aku cuma tertarik kota Jerusalem. Gimana si di Dark Era si Scott bikinnya di CGI :-?

  14. I saw this movie “Kingdom of Heaven” and it is anti-Christian, and esp. offensive to historical accuracy of the Crusade and characters involved. The main character “Balian of Ibelin” is portrayed as an agnostic and favoring some secret Brotherhood of Christians, Jews and Muslims (cf. the movie The Order).

    People who love the Da Vinci Code (HOAX!) will love this terrible flick.

    I have not seen a good movie on the Crusades, it is a shame that a director et al are not willing to be accurate and fair.

    As far as the pure graphics and art. I was not impressed. Gladiator was a far superior movie in both filmography and sound. I miss the retro-casting like the 10 Commandments with really thousands of actors, esp. for scenes. Regardless, there was no logical order really to this movie.

    Godfrey (Liam Neeson) was well acted. Clearly, we see the difference of quality acting between Neeson and Orlando Bloom (Balian). However, Bloom plays a good agnostic! So I guess he did his job well.

    Richard the Lionheart displayed a distinguished aura of faith and chivalry. Before that point in the movie, barely was this shown (perhaps with Godfrey). Saladin was the one with strong conviction and leadership.

    It is true Balian surrenders Jerusalem. But, the movie supplemented the reason being he only desired civil human freedom, not religious liberty to Christians because of his own lack of christian faith.

    If that was the case, what business you have in the Middle East–FRANKly(pun)??? (Also like no humor in the whole film ahhh!)

    The Crusades was more than just an old Truman doctrine of political affairs. Sure, there was political and monetary issues here, no doubt. But, that cancels itself with the potential loses at home (ala Prince John in England). Most went on this religious pilgrimage to find God and free their brothers in faith. The film made out Christian priests and folk as a bunch of low level heathens! Hollywood does this mostly. So no surprise I suppose.

    May the Ghostly Crusaders Hurricane Justice.

    Amen.

  15. patik saksikan sinema itu pada sabtoe malem laloe. patik soekan sinema itu karena relatif netral. bahawa balian seorang agnostik, itoe moengkin bisa diterima.
    siapapoen akan tergoencang keimannja bila istrinja yang soedah meninggal masih haroes dipenggal kepalanja saat akan dikoeboer dengan alasan itoe oentoek sesoeai dengan pelakoe boenoeh diri.:-\
    patik koerang sepakat djikalaoe ada jang berkata tiada hoemor di sinema itu. joestroe banjak sekali hoemor-hoemor jenius dan orisinal di sinema terseboet.

  16. iya, katanya film ini sangat bagus, diangkat dari kisah perang salib. tapi bagaimanapun apakah bener-benar nyata saya tidak tahu, apalagi pasti harus dibumbui oleh sesuatu yang menarik. bagaimanapun sisi yang dihadirkan, keuntungan berupa duitlah yang dituju, selebihnya hiburan.

  17. Hollywood pinter nyari pasar, sineas indonesia ngumbar gaya hidup bule..

    mana tuh sodara kita di maluku, irian, ternate…kok wajah sinetron wajah bule …

  18. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050505/REVIEWS/50426001

    The first thing to be said for Ridley Scott’s “Kingdom of Heaven” is that Scott knows how to direct a historical epic. I might have been kinder to his “Gladiator” had I known that “Troy” and “Alexander” were in my future, but “Kingdom of Heaven” is better than “Gladiator” — deeper, more thoughtful, more about human motivation and less about action.

    The second thing is that Scott is a brave man to release a movie at this time about the wars between Christians and Muslims for control of Jerusalem. Few people will be capable of looking at “Kingdom of Heaven” objectively. I have been invited by both Muslims and Christians to view the movie with them so they can point out its shortcomings. When you’ve made both sides angry, you may have done something right. The Muslim scholar Hamid Dabashi, however, after being asked to consult on the movie, writes in the new issue of Sight & Sound: “It was neither pro- nor anti-Islamic, neither pro- nor anti-Christian. It was, in fact, not even about the ‘Crusades.'” And yet I consider the film to be a profound act of faith.” It is an act of faith, he thinks, because for its hero Balian (Orlando Bloom), who is a non-believer, “All religious affiliations fade in the light of his melancholic quest to find a noble purpose in life.”

    That’s an insight that helps me understand my own initial question about the film, which was: Why don’t they talk more about religion? Weren’t the Crusades seen by Christians as a Holy War to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims? I wondered if perhaps Scott was evading the issue. But not really: He shows characters more concerned with personal power and advancement than with theological issues.

    Balian, a village blacksmith in France, discovers he is the illegitimate son of Sir Godfrey (Liam Neeson). Godfrey is a knight returning from the Middle East, who paints Jerusalem not in terms of a holy war but in terms of its opportunities for an ambitious young man; it has a healthy economy at a time when medieval Europe is stagnant. “A man who in France has not a house is in the holy land the master of a city,” Godfrey promises. “There at the end of the world you are not what you were born but what you have it in yourself to be.” He makes Jerusalem sound like a medieval Atlanta, a city too busy to hate.

    For the 100 years leading up to the action, both Christians and Muslims were content to see each other worship in the holy city. It was only when Christian zealots determined to control the Holy Land more rigidly that things went wrong. The movie takes place circa 1184, as the city is ruled by the young King Baldwin (Edward Norton), who has leprosy and conceals his disfigured face behind a silver mask. Balian takes control of the city after the death of its young king. Then the Knights Templar, well known from The Da Vinci Code, wage war on the Muslims. Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) leads a Muslim army against them, and Balian eventually surrenders the city to him. Much bloodshed and battle are avoided.

    What Scott seems to be suggesting, I think, is that most Christians and Muslims might be able to coexist peacefully if it were not for the extremists on both sides. This may explain why the movie has displeased the very sorts of Muslims and Christians who will take moderation as an affront. Most ordinary moviegoers, I suspect, will not care much about the movie’s reasonable politics, and will be absorbed in those staples of all historical epics, battle and romance.

    The romance here is between Balian and Sibylla (Eva Green), sister of King Baldwin. You might wonder how a blacksmith could woo a princess, but reflect that Sir Godfrey was correct, and there are indeed opportunities for an ambitious young man in Jerusalem, especially after his newly discovered father makes him a knight, and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) enlists him as an aide to Baldwin.

    One spectacular battle scene involves the attack of Saladin’s forces on Christian-controlled Jerusalem, and it’s one of those spectacular set pieces with giant balls of flame that hurtle through the air and land close, but not too close, to the key characters.

    There is a certain scale that’s inevitable in films of this sort, and Scott does it better than anybody. Even so, I enjoyed the dialogue and plot more than the action. I’ve seen one or two vast desert cities too many. Nor do thousands of charging horses look brand new to me, and the hand-to-hand combat looks uncannily like all other hand-to-hand combat. Godfrey gives Balian a lesson in swordsmanship (chop from above), but apparently the important thing to remember is that if you’re an anonymous enemy you die, and if you’re a hero you live unless a glorious death is required. You’d think people would be killed almost by accident in the middle of a thousand sword-swinging madmen, but every encounter is broken down into a confrontation between a victor and a vanquished. It’s well done, but it’s been done.

    What’s more interesting is Ridley Scott’s visual style, assisted by John Mathieson’s cinematography and the production design of Arthur Max. A vast set of ancient Jerusalem was constructed to provide realistic foregrounds and locations, which were then enhanced by CGI backgrounds, additional horses and troops, and so on. There is also exhilarating footage of young Balian makes his way to Jerusalem, using the 12th-century equivalent of GPS: “Go to where they speak Italian, and then keep going.”

    The movie is above all about the personal codes of its heroes, both Christian and Muslim. They are men of honor: Gentlemen, we would say, if they were only a little gentle. They’ve seen enough bloodshed and lost enough comrades to look with a jaundiced eye at the zealots who urge them into battle. There is a scene where Baldwin and Saladin meet on a vast plain between their massed troops, and agree, man to man, to end the battle right then and there. Later, one of Balian’s pre-battle speeches to his troops sounds strangely regretful: “We fight over an offense we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended.”

    Time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

  19. For those of you whose speaking english and claims that the story that’s portrayed in Kingdom of Heaven as a “lie” or “not based on facts”, I believe you have to read a book about it written by Karen Armstrong.

    The title of the book is “The Holy War”.

  20. Film ini mengundang kontroversi baik yang pro maupun yang kontra. Terlepas dari itu semua, sebaiknya kita hati2 dalam menanggapi film tersebut. Karena keterbatasan wacana yang ada.

    Bagi saya, dengan menonton film tersebut, saya mendapat satu pelajaran, bahwa sebenarnya ada apa dengan Yerusalem? seperti pertanyaan Belian pada film tersebut.

    Apakah untuk membela kekuasaan atau kepercayaan?

  21. Pingback: Arjuna
  22. Saya setuju kalau film ini sangat-sangat bagus, terutama utk kaum Muslimin, ternyata kita2 punya tokoh yg demikian hebat. Insya Allah kalau kaum Muslimin muncul dan berjaya tokoh2 spt. Salahuddin akan semakin banyak terlihat dan akan membuat kedamaian di dunia (tidak spt. sekarang ini)….

  23. Ya, film yang bagus. Betapapun Hollywood tetap menonjolkan karakter pada si Balian, film ini kupikir film yang cukup objektif. Dan yang terpenting, membangunkan kita dari “tema besar” yang sedang dibangun Amerika tentang Islam dan terorisme; antara orientasi melawan terorisme dengan penguasaan sumber daya (utamanya minyak). Great job, Scott!

  24. Waktu pertama kali film ini keluar, aku langsung nonton. kebetulan temen yang ngajak aku maniac banget nonton. Lumayan bagus. Tapi terkesan dipaksakan :)

  25. Buat no 2 Iya jadi ingat Age of Empires II, kalo pake pasukan kaveleri sultan sladin pati deh menangan.
    Mengenaskan ya banyak tokoh2x islam yang “disingkirkan” dari sejarah oleh orang islam sendiri tapi di hormati bahkan kalau boleh di “dewakan” oleh orang barat misalnya Rumi, Ibnu Sina.

  26. kingdom of heaven yahud bgt, bagus, moga2 kedamaian israel-palestina terwujud..
    let jerusalem become the holy city..

  27. mas, saya baru nonton filem ini last weekend dari VCD rental (asli lho…:p)..i was speechless….
    baru tahu kalo ada film crusade yang ‘jujur’…tp setahuku ini hanya sekuel atau bagian dari Cursade part III, sedang part I dan II nya yang Yerusalem diduduki oleh tentara Salib (yang dikatakan Balian, membunuhi semua Muslim dibalik tembok…) …adakah filem nya?

    anyway, jadi kagum ama sutradaranya…besok mau minjem yang Black Hawk Down ahh…

    mas, aku juga nulis ulasannya di blog ku…dan yang menariknya waktu aku goggling ttg filem ini, ada ulasan yang sangat bagus dari rekan Penulis Kristen yang mengatakan…

    …..”Walau bagaimanapun Perang Salib adalah sejarah hitam akibat dari abusement terhadap ajaran Tuhan Yesus Kristus, bagaimana Lambang Salib Sang Raja Damai itu dijadikan ‘icon-perang’ selama hampir 4 abad. Pada akhirnya Perang-Salib ini dimenangkan oleh kubu Sabil. Tahun 1453 merupakan masa jatuhnya Konstantinopel, kota kebanggaan Kristen itu menjadi Negara Islam hingga sekarang. Maka, hendaknya hal tersebut menjadikan suatu bukti bahwa Perang-Salib itu tidak dikehendaki Tuhan.” ulasan lengkap baca disini.

  28. Menurut sejarah yang saya baca, King Baldwin IV dan Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi tidak pernah saling bertemu muka (saat Battle of Kerak). Tapi yg “I will send you my medician” itu menurut yang saya baca memang Salahuddin menyampaikannya, tetapi tidak secara langsung seperti yang terlihat di filemnya. CMIIW. Saya suka nonton filem ini, bahkan bolak-balik nonton DVD-nya :D

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *