The Crusades

Starring Henry Wilcoxon, Loretta Young, and Ian Keith. This film focuses mainly on the Third Crusade, with events from the others used as background.

In 1187 , when infidels take Jerusalem and hold Christians captive, a man called The Hermit escapes and goes back to Europe, preaching for a Crusade to free Jerusalem. Several countries join. When The Hermit reaches England, King Richard the Lion-Hearted (Henry Wilcoxon) joins the Crusade to avoid marriage to Alice (Katharine DeMille), the King of France's sister. When the soldiers from the various countries reach Navarre, the King of Navarre sells his daughter Berengaria (Loretta Young) in marriage to Richard in exchange for rations for the soldiers and horses. The director in tall boots takes the story from there.

This film is long, drawn out by political intrigues and lots of speeches about Christianity being the only true religion. Film Finally wakes up in the second hour with some spectacular footage of the siege of Acre, and the plot gets moving.

Wilcoxon plays Richard as a thuggish dimwit. Young is seemingly the only person in the film to have a brain in her head, and who acts with subtlety. Ian Keith, as Saladin, does well in a small role. Everyone else is either of very good or very bad character, and you can tell by their dialogue in their first sentence which they're meant to be. No real nuance in the characterization. Alan Hale is annoying as a minstrel.

The film is almost free of knee slapping lines, but there is one priceless line. Just before Acre is attacked, a sentry yells: "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!".

Comic book history, smothered with religion to please the production code, and spectacle on the side. It's an okay watch-just have caffeine handy for the talky scenes in the first hour.

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.

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.

The name De Mille evokes big sets, big costumes and bigger action and Crusades was his follow up to his earlier take on Christian oration from the scandalous - in a good way - Sign of the cross. Henry Wilcoxson, his Marc Anthony of Cleopatra and the always beautiful Loretta Young team up in this extravagant epic. King Richard the Lionheart is not a Christian and is not faithful to the ways of the sign of the cross but to escape a forced marriage he signs up for the Crusades to free the holy city of Jerusalem. Of course, there is scheming behind his back to seize his throne while he is gone. Along the way he trades for a wife, Loretta and haggles and argues with his other European leaders. Now, it has often not be said for it is almost as if De Mille build big sets and big stories to tell little moments for all his excess, his movies are ridiculously dialogue driven, even by the standards of the other expensive blockbuster-type movies made back then. De Mille loved dialogue scenes and focusing on character. Very strange. And this movie is really a politics and character movie as the future of Europe is argued and royal pompous exposed. The action sequences are obvious studio sets but well shot. The final moments have good heart that is not forced but earned. Thus, is this a good movie. It is hard to say because for every good scene there is a juvenile scene obviously put in to satiate the masses. Good direction though, very good direction. That said, Crusades lost money when first released, if you only look at its Domestic boxoffice rentals but was the biggest grossing movie of its year.

The production values of this picture are excellent. You can tell from the sets and costumes a lot of money was spent. The great weakness of this film is the script and acting technique. The script is straight 19th century maudlin melodrama. Unfortunately, the acting technique is the same. Lines are delivered in a stilted, formal manner common to the stage of an earlier era instead of the more natural technique we are accustomed to seeing in film today. The 30's was indeed a transition period in acting technique: the over wrought melodramatic technique of the silent pictures and stage in the early thirties to the natural technique finally adopted in the late 30's. Of course, the plot itself is implausibly melodramatic "love conquers all" for "world peace" kind of thing. Still, for a film student its still worth watching for the fine directing.