Most of you are probably familiar with director Ridley Scott.
He has directed some of the most iconic films of the last few decades but also has built
a reputation around his less than stellar films.
Kingdom of Heaven was one that seemed to fall somewhere in the middle for most people.
Nothing terrible but nothing too special either.
During the editing process there was a lot of discussion about how the film should be
cut together, namely to fix one problem.
"The first thing that came up, which is no surprise to anybody because this is usually
the first note that comes out of any studio executive's mouth, is that it's too long."
Even after the tremendous success of Gladiator just a few years prior, the studio seemed
to have doubts in Ridley's vision for the film and continued to pressure him and his
team into making certain changes.
"We were kind of stripping things out of the film at large, which was diminishing the sophistication.
And what it did was it sort of took the narrative focus off of this grand tapestry and put a
spotlight on the Balian character; which although it's a very interesting arc it wasn't the
way Ridley had envisioned the story."
So essentially the film's editor Dody Dorn was tasked with cutting two films simultaneously,
one for the studio and theatrical release, and the longer more sophisticated version
meant for later release as the Director's Cut.
I think it's important to understand what the story is trying to accomplish to understand
why these changes so adversely effect the film, so in case you've never seen the film
and would like to follow along or if you just need a memory jog.
The story starts in France with the Knight Godfrey returning home to find his bastard
son Balian, in the hopes that he'll accompany him to Jerusalem and follow in serving King
Baldwin.
The King has held on to a tennuos peace between the Christians and the Muslims that many would
seek to destroy, most notably Guy de Lusignan and Reynald de Chattillon, who function as
the film's primary antagonists.
That's essentially the first arc of the film leading into the second and third acts.
In the beginning of the film, Godfrey wants Balian to follow him to Jerusalem, but Balian
declines his offer until this moment happens.
Causing him to ride after Godfrey, now hoping that he can find redemption for himself and
for his wife, who committed suicide after losing her unborn child.
This is Balian's main driving motivation throughout the first act, and this inciting incident
is what sets him on his journey.
But in the theatrical cut, it comes off feeling unearned given the context leading up to the
scene.
There are only three scenes in total featuring the Priest; at the burial of Balian's wife,
at Balian's workshop with Godfrey and his knights, and again at Balian's workshop when
he's killed.
In this first scene, significant character moments are here, which certainly plays a
role in his death, and here.
"Wait, she was a suicide, cut off her head.
And return the axe!"
His second scene consists of him mostly in the background with barely any dialogue, and
in his final scene with him trying to convince Balian to go to Jerusalem, where he might
find redemption for his wife.
"If you take the Crusade, you may relieve your wife's position in Hell.
I put it delicately, she was a suicide, she is in Hell, though what she does there without
a head."
Okay, so the main problem is that throughout the rest of the film, Balian is defined as
a typically non-violent person, only using violence to protect the innocent and in self
defense, and this character trait actually becomes very important at several different
points in the film, but is communicated poorly by a lack of context surrounding Balian and
this Priest, where nothing we've been shown seems a valid justification for his murder.
In the Director's Cut however, the Priest is featured in seven scenes.
Three extended versions of original scenes, as well as four entirely new scenes.
All of which give us more background on the Priest and his relationship to Balian.
Starting in that very first scene, where a significant detail is revealed.
"Wait.
You've forgotten."
"She was your brother's wife-" "She was a suicide, cut off her head.
And return the axe!"
This detail was removed completely from the theatrical release but giving them this personal
connection changes the perceived motivations of the character drastically.
Still though, ordering for her beheading may not be inherently malicious, these were different
times with different traditions, we don't know what the historical context is without
the film clearly defining it, until we see more important information revealed in the
Director's Cut, as the town Bishop asks of the burial.
"Yet you did not mutilate the person."
"No."
"The law can go too far, it can go too far I ask myself, would Jesus do it thusly.
There's so much done in Christendom of which Christ would be incapable."
This reveals to us that while it may be the law of the time, mutilating the body is not
condoned by the Church, something this Priest would be well aware of, and yet does so anyways
and lies directly when confronted with the question.
But arguably the most important detail that was cut, comes in this scene as Balian visits
his wife's grave.
"Her grave was here, or was it there?
I'm afraid I can't tell you the exact location, I wasn't present at the burial.
Call me a liar, you have reason."
"You never fight back."
This establishes a crucial character trait of Balian that I mentioned earlier, that he
isn't violent by nature.
Even suffering from intense grief, and being provoked by his brother, he remains calm.
And when juxtaposed against this final confrontation, it gives us a better understanding of the
weight of that moment.
He didn't just lash out in grief and anger on some innocent Priest whose only crime was
doing his job, but struck down the man who mutilated his wife's body against the Church's
will, took her only remaining possession for himself, and continually taunted and provoked
his brother until he reached his absolute breaking point.
Without these scenes, and all of the important details revealed within, it clouds the judgement
and motivations of the characters, creating inconsistensies that profoundly effect the
entire narrative of the film.
I think the result can best be described by the film's editor, Dody Dorn.
"He shot it in such a way that I had all of the literal connective tissue, so I knew,
I knew that it would work, by work I just mean that you could connect the dots.
Because sometimes there are scenes so embedded in a narrative that you cannot take a scene
out, you're left with a giant hole.
The kind of holes that we were left with were not narrative holes, they were character holes.
So to take the scenes out you could still tell the story, but you're left with less
emotion.
And I think that an emotional connection gives value to a movie-going experience."
This is just the start of our hero's journey and already so much of the nuance and texture
of the character's and their motivations has been lost.
And this is more or less how the rest of the film plays out.
There's even plenty more to uncover in the first act alone that I didn't discuss in this
video, but for the sake of time I'd be remiss if I didn't cover the most substantial alteration,
that comes into play at the climax of the film.
To set the stage.
Before Balian arrives in Jerusalem, Godfrey succumbs to wounds inflicted in a prior battle,
but not before making Balian a Knight proper and leaving his homestead in Ibelin and men
at arms in Balian's command.
It's at his home in Ibelin that he begins having an affair in secret with Sibylla, the
King's sister, and wife of Guy de Lusignan, a French nobleman with the largest force in
the Kingdom, a man who detests Balian, believing that a bastard has no place in the King's
company.
Tensions in the Kingdom rise as Guy and Reynald de Chattillon continue to instigate the Muslims
in an attempt to start a war, nearly doing so after ambushing a Saracen caravan against
the King's wishes.
The peace is upheld when the King rides to meet Saladin and his forces, offering his
word that Reyanld will be punished for his crimes.
Nearing death when his leprosy worsens after travelling to Kerak, the King presents Balian
with an offer.
Take command of the armies of Jerusalem, marry Sibylla, and keep the peace, with one caveat.
"And Guy?"
"He will be executed, along with his knights who do not sway allegiance."
"I cannot be the cause of that."
And this is exactly why it's so important to have established this character trait earlier
on.
If all he has to do to prevent a war is to marry the woman he loves, and allow the death
of an evil man who would himself kill Balian without hesitation, just feels out of character
and moreover, naive.
That he would kill a man out of anger but not to save thousands of innocent lives?
But establishing this aversion to violence earlier on carries a greater impact in this
moment, the weight of this decision is not lost on Balian, but in his own words: "It's
a Kingdom of conscience, or nothing."
And it only gets worse from here.
Despite every other scene depicting Sibylla as kind, and loving, a firm believer in her
brother's vision of a Kingdom for all to lay claim, to worship and to co-exist, and despite
knowing Guy's true nature and intentions to bring war to the Kingdom, after the death
of her brother, she makes a choice.
"If I have your knights, you have your army."
This is arguably the most pivotal moment in the film.
For after Guy is crowned King, he immediately marches to war against the Muslims.
And after his army destroyed, Reynald executed and Guy taken prisoner, Saladin begins marching
his army to reclaim the city, leaving Balian in charge of its defense.
This one selfish act from Sibylla results in the death of thousands of men, the near
destruction of the city and nearly the loss of everything that her brother fought so hard
to protect.
Betraying everything we've come to learn of her character throughout the film and cheapening
the entire third act of the film as a result.
All because of...what exactly?
In the theatrical cut, it's really not clear, just another character hole left in the wake
of deleted scenes that give us a better understanding of her motivations.
For as we learn in the Director's Cut, she had another reason for allowing Guy to take
power.
"My brother's dying, my son will be King and I his regent.
I must rule for him."
Never mentioned or shown in the theatrical cut, Sibylla has a son from a previous marriage
who will soon wear the crown, as her brother had no children of his own.
Without her brother's protection, she fears for his safety, and not without good cause.
"Without my knights, your son's rule will be bloody and brief."
Her brother dead, Tiberius and his men on the road to Cyprus and Balian gone from the
city, she had nowhere left to turn.
Making the only choice she felt that she could.
"If my son has your knights, you have your wife."
Her decision must not have come easy, but what else was she to do?
Let Guy take control of the city by force, leading to the death of her son?
Or give him the war he so desperately wants so long as it means her son's safekeeping?
She was willing to sacrifice anything and everything to protect him, it wasn't a selfish
act of self-preservation, but a sacrifice made out of a mother's love, and the cruel
irony of it all is that not long after this great sacrifice, it's discovered that like
his Uncle before him, he too is a leper.
"How long before he wears a mask?
Will you have one made for him?
How did my boy deserve it?
Jerusalem is dead Tiberius, no Kingdom is worth my son alive in Hell, so I will go to
Hell instead."
Believing she's saving him from eternal damnation, she makes another difficult choice.
The moral complexity of her situation is completely lost by removing her son from the story, she
sacrificed the Kingdom to protect him, so if he isn't a part of the story, then what
is she sacrificing it for?
Nothing as far as I can tell.
It's a disgrace to such a beautifully crafted character, and diminishes so much of the tension
in the latter half of the film.
The film as a whole is truly something to behold, but all of these different changes
take the emotional core right out of the film, and leave us with more questions than answers,
and resulting in a film that feels hollow, and as one critic puts it, "spectacularly
empty".
And it's just a shame to see, because the film has largely been forgotten, thought of
as a mediocre entry in Scott's prolific career, but I believe it deserves to be held in just
as high of regard as Blade Runner, or Alien.
But with so much money on the line, it seemed that the studio got cold feet, and continued
to water down the film into something else.
"There's always, in a project this expensive, reticentses that pop up about everything,
you know, about everything, it's why movies get processed into sludge.
Because everybody's spooked about this or spooked about this or that.
It gets over processed and over processed, and all of the edge gets taken out, and it
just turns into porridge."
And I'm torn, because on the one hand, they butchered a great film by cutting out all
of the depth of the characters despite adamant resistance from the creative minds that they
hired to make the film, but on the other hand, they commissioned a Director's Cut within
a month of the film's release, hiring back all of the same talent to make sure they got
it right.
And all of these different soundbytes are pulled from the official DVD so they're apparently
not shying away from these ugly details, but one has to wonder how different the film's
trajectory would have been had it been released in its proper form to begin with.
At any rate, I'm just grateful the Director's Cut is out there at all, I think it was a
respectable move on their part to push for its release and I strongly urge everyone to
see the film in its proper form, the way it was always intended.
Words truly can't quite express just how much of a better film it really is, but I think
Dody succinctly describes it.
"To me they feel like two different films.
One film seems like an action adventure sword and sandal film, and the other film seems
to me like a sophisticated historical epic."
I obviously didn't get a chance to cover every change between the two versions, so if you're
looking for more information I'll link to an in-depth post in the description that covers
all of the changes, even the minor ones.
If you're interested in seeing more on the topic of editing, I'd recommend watching my
latest video as it deals with a similar subject.
Also, I'm excited to announce that I have t-shirts and mugs available on Teespring if
you're interested in checking that out, I had been wanting one for myself for some time
and figured I might as well have them available for you guys as well, and it's another way
of helping me out if you're interested in that sort of thing.
I'm actually going to be giving one of these away, the crew neck in this gray, it's in
a medium so if you're interesting in receiving that just let me know in the comments, and
preferably leave me a way that I can contact you so I can send it along.
As always, I want to say thank you to all of my patrons for helping me make these videos,
especially with the lack of sponsorship on this and the last video, you guys are helping
me more than ever and I really appreciate it.
Anyways, thank you for watching, and I'll see you next time.