Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Young Avraham Movie to Première at Vancouver Jewish Film Festival

Over the years, I've become somewhat jaded about the seemingly endless flow of people telling us they are making new Bible-related films: all too often they are never heard of again. So I'm a bit surprised that of all of them, one that actually has gone the distance is Young Avraham.

As its title suggests, Young Avraham is a story of the early life of the biblical patriarch, from his childhood to the point where he appears in the Book of Genesis. It's based on Midrashic tales but with an eye firmly on 21st century sensibilities.

Anyway, whilst the film has been available on DVD for sometime now, it's having it's North American première on Sunday night (3rd April) as part of the Vancouver Jewish Film Festival.

I'm hoping my favourite Vancouverite Peter Chattaway, who had a good bit to say about this film when news broke in 2008, will make it to the screening as I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. Whilst I find the idea interesting, the medium doesn't really appeal. As I noted earlier in the week, 3D CGI dates pretty quickly, and is easy to do badly. Two of the four clips on the film's official website have been available on YouTube since August 2007 and, to be honest, don't look great. That said, I've seen worse and they do make me think that the film will be interesting. In the first we see Abraham's father being told to kill the boy by his king, echoing the request that God makes about Isaac many years later. The second contains a scene of a magus pointing out the presence of a new star coinciding with the boy's birth, echoing the star that accompanied the birth of Jesus. The latter certainly gets me wondering if this is a modern flourish, or something that's found in the account in the Midrash. Either way it's interesting. The former suggests this decidedly Jewish film riffing on the birth of Jesus. The latter would be highlighting the way Matthew is riffing on the birth of Abraham. The former seems unlikely, whereas I'm sure that I would have heard of this detail were it to be the latter. Time to do some research...

Monday, February 1, 2010

The Bible: A History, Part 2

Following on from Howard Jacobson's look at Creation in last week's The Bible: A History was Rageh Omar's look at Abraham, and the three monotheistic faiths that all trace their roots back to him.

It was familiar territory for Omar, brought up a Muslim in nominally Christian country (the UK), who has explored relationships between Christians, Muslims and Jews in various other documentaries before.

Whilst the production values were similarly high as in the first programme in the series, it felt somewhat more tangential than the opening instalment. It was certainly interesting enough in its own way, but it felt less to do with the Bible per se and more to do with two religions that follow it and a third that doesn't. Even then though, I didn't feel I came away with a greater understanding of what the Qu'ran has to say about Abraham.

There was some interesting material - the overview of Sumerian culture towards the start of the programme, and the way in which the story of Abraham may have spoken to the Jews exiled in Babylon in the 6th century - but these felt like the exception rather than the rule.

None of which is to say that the relationship between the three faiths isn't important. It is, massively so. But it didn't really feel like this was a show about the Bible that talked about related issues; more a show about one of those issues that happened to mention the Bible.

In fairness, it's become clear to me now that this criticism could also be levelled at the first programme, with the major difference being arguably only my own interest one issue as against the other. So it will be interesting to see how next week's programme - Anne Widdecombe's look at Exodus and the Ten Commandments - fits with this trend.

The preview at the start and end of this week's offering promises Widdecombe's exploring how God's big ten came to underpin Western law, as well a confrontation with an angry sounding Stephen Fry (in which Widdecombe can surely only come out looking second best). It shall be interesting how much this programme actually ends up being to do with the Bible, not least because Widdecombe is the first Christian in this series to be presenting an episode.

Incidentally, under the 4 on Demand page for each episode numerous viewers have offered their own thoughts on the programme. As you might expect there is more than a little ranting from some quarters.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Year One at ReJesus

My first review of Year One is now up at rejesus. I'll discuss the Biblical elements of the film in more detail here shortly.

Monday, June 22, 2009

First Reviews for Year One

Year One doesn't open here until Friday (so say the posters on the buses in London), and I've not been sent a review copy, so my own review of this film will have to wait until the weekend (in what is the busiest couple of weeks ever). Meanwhile, Peter Chattaway's review is up at Christianity Today, as well as a brief piece on other films about Genesis (I wrote a longer article similar to this back in 2005). And on his blog Peter offers some points he "considered making in my review but, for whatever reason, didn't". Here's a snippet of Peter's review:
Along the way, people talk about God every now and then, but his role in the story is rather diminished; indeed, where the Bible ascribes certain actions to God, the film consistently ascribes them to regular people (except for one lightning bolt, the timing of which may point to a higher cause). It is not God but Zed's fellow villagers who expel him for eating the forbidden fruit; it is not God but Adam (Ramis) whose questions prompt Cain to complain that he isn't Abel's "keeper"; and it is not God who saves Isaac from being sacrificed at the last minute but Zed and Oh, who stumble onto the scene just as Abraham is raising his knife.
...
On a certain level, comedies like these can serve a valid purpose, inasmuch as they highlight the vast gulf in sensibilities between ancient cultures and our own; it is not a bad thing to realize just how "strange" the ancient world was, or how "strange" we would seem to them.
...
Occasionally amusing but not very funny, and far too coarse and stupid to be all that enlightening, Year One has to rank as the most disappointing Bible-themed movie by a major studio in decades
Peter's not alone in disliking this one. It's currently only got 5.5 at IMDb, 37% at Metacritic, and just 20% at Rotten Tomatoes. That said both Variety and The New York Times liked it, though the usually generous Roger Ebert is not a fan.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Coming Soon on Year One

Peter Chattaway has links to two on-set reports about Year One. Cinematical's article includes a couple of quotes from Michael Cera which, as with the whole piece, suggest that the filmmakers have pulled out all the stops with this one. A second Cinematical article is due out shortly.

Meanwhile, a similar length article is up at ComingSoon.net, but it is accompanied by interviews with the following members of cast and crew:
Director Harold Ramis
Jack Black (Zed)
Michael Cera (Oh)
David Cross (Cain)
Oliver Platt (The High Priest)
It seems David Cross's role will go far beyond that of the biblical Cain. i'm not sure what to make of his claim that Life of Brian "didn't really make much of a comment as much as this has". Anyway, there's plenty of reading material there for anyone who is interested, and I guess release of this film is now only 6 or so weeks away.

Edit: And now Peter has linked to the international trailer which features a glimpse of Abraham and Isaac.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The God Complex

I just came across the website for The God Complex - an irreverent comedy that "takes the silliest stories from the Bible and makes them...well...just a little sillier". Although it's still in production there are a number of stills and several clips available to view. If you're bothered by bad language then these probably aren't the clips for you.

It looks like the film mainly focusses on Genesis, though it also promises footage from today "where Jesus walks among us disguised as a mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper", and whilst it prides itself on being low budget there's at least one nifty special effect. All in all it looks like it will have a lot in common with The Real Old Testament.

I'm going to contact the filmmakers to see if I can get more information, and I'll report back if so.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Azaria to be Abraham in Year One

Photo by Kevinthoule, used under a Creative Commons Licence

It's been a while since I blogged anything about Year One - Judd Apatow's forthcoming historical comedy. Back in December I linked to a piece over at MTV where star Jack Black described it as "a funny look at biblical tales", but didn't reveal which one(s).

Peter Chattaway has made three more posts linking to other stories on the film which seem to indicate that the story of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah will be (amongst those) covered. Certainly, at least according to the Hollywood Reporter, it will star Hank Azaria (pictured) as Abraham, and now Olivia Wilde has revealed to MTV that she'll play the princess of Sodom. She also repeats the points made elsewhere about Michael Cera and Jack Black's characters meeting "all these characters... from the bible" and that the film will have Monty Python-esque humour.

It'll be interesting to see how this film compares to that other episodic comedy featuring Abraham, The Real Old Testament.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Young Avraham MovieFilm Based on Abraham's Childhood

Peter Chattaway has news of a forthcoming film based on the Jewish Midrash. Young Avraham will follows the childhood of Abraham upto the point that he burst onto the scene in Genesis 11. Peter thinks this is the first example of a film being released which is based primarily on a midrashic tale (as opposed to merely incorporating midrashic accounts to flesh out a biblical story).

The film's official production blog contains a good number of production stills as well as come clips from the film which have been put on YouTube. The animation looks very similar to the biblical parts of last year's Friends and Heroes. There's also a summary of the story which is useful for those of us who are not that familiar with it.

It's a bit unclear what's happening with the release of this one. The official site says it will "be available for purchase Winter 2007", but that's been and gone and there are no links or anything which suggests you can buy it yet. Moreover, there's nothing at Amazon as of yet.

I hope it makes it. It certainly sounds like an interesting idea.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Scene Guide - The Real Old Testament

Having reviewed Paul and Curtis Hannum's The Real Old Testament last week, I'd like now to give some scene analysis on the film. This is a fairly easy task as the individual episodes are given Bible references, and tie in fairly well with the chapter breaks on the DVD. Citing Bible references makes the film more authoritative, particularly for those who are not that familiar with Genesis, whilst also defusing some of the potential objections that its critics might raise. The main story headings (for each chunk of the story) are just cited as whole chapters, but each element within that chunk is accompanied by more specific references. To capture this I've made the main headings bold. All verses are as cited by the intertitles
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Introduction]
Gen 1-3 - The Garden of Eden
The Forbidden Tree - (Gen 2:15)
Temptation at the Tree - (Gen 3)
The Fall From Grace - (Gen 3:9)
Gen 4 - Cain and Abel
Cain and Abel's Offering to God - (Gen 4:3)
Cain kills Abel - (Gen 4:8)
God Confronts Cain - (Gen 4:9)
Gen 12, 15, 16 - Abram and Sarai
God Comes to Abram - (Gen 12)
Sarai is Barren - (Gen 16)
Sarai Deals Harshly with Hagar - (Gen 16:6)
God Find Hagar in the Wilderness - (Gen 16:7)
Gen 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot Visited by Two Angels - (Gen 19:4)
Lot and His Family Flee - (Gen 19:15)
Sin of Lot's Daughters - (Gen 19:30)
Gen 17, 20-22 - Abraham and Sarah
Abraham and Sarah meet King Abimelech - (Gen 20)
Sarah Laughs at God's Pledge - (Gen 18:9)
God Tests Abraham - (Gen 22)
Gen 29-30 - Jacob and Rachel
Jacob Meets Rachel - (Gen 29:9)
Laban and Leah deceive Jacob - (Gen 29:23)
Jacob and the Handmaidens - (Gen 30:3)
Rachel Trades Jacob's Favours for some Mandrake - (Gen 30:14)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - The Re-Union Show]
Notes
There are a number of similarities between this film and John Huston's The Bible: In the Beginning (in addition to covering the same subject matter). Firstly, the film's title suggests it covers a greater portion of the Bible than it actually does: Huston's film stops at Genesis 22 (after the aborted sacrifice of Isaac). The Real Old Testament goes eight chapters further.

Secondly, from a textual point of view, both films offer a fairly literal reproduction, yet in both cases it is precisely because these films let the stories speak for themselves that they bring such uncomfortable challenges to the original stories. Finally both films star their directors in key roles: Huston plays Noah and Paul Hannum plays Snake whilst Curtis Hannum plays God. There are, of course, numerous other comparisons.

This is the only film I can recall which shows the incident with Lot's daughters. It's absence in other Genesis films perhaps owes something to it's strangeness, and even though it's played for laughs here, it's uncomfortable viewing. Another episode usually glossed over is that of Rachel swapping sex with Jacob for Mandrake. Having recently watched Pan's Labyrinth (my review), where the legends surrounding the plant are explored, these aspects seemed particularly pertinent to me this time around. For more on this see the post on Rachel and Genesis 30 at Ralph the Sacred River.

Whilst covering most of the first thirty chapters of Genesis there are a few notable omissions. In particular Noah and the Tower of Babel, as well as the stories of Isaac and Esau. I imagine that former pair were omitted for reasons of budget as much as anything else. (Interestingly the Noah scene is the only one in which Huston sought to bring out the humour). I'm curious as to why the story of Esau was left out. Perhaps the Hannums couldn't see the humour in it when they were creating the scenarios. Or perhaps it was filmed, but didn't reach the same standard as the rest of the film. One or two scenes are moved out of the order they occur in the bible, although their arrangement there is not actually chronological in any case.

As with MTV's The Real World, the film ends with a "Re-Union Show" where all the characters get together again. Bring characters separated by time together produces a few new laughs, such as when one character calls Eve a "babe" before realising that they're supposed to be related, or Snake extolling the virtues of agents. It is however, the weakest part of the film. Interestingly though, it does raise questions about the treatment of women in the book of Genesis.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Huston on making The Bible

I realised the other day that I haven't blogged on a film about the Old Testament since the 5th June when I posted about the planned, Ten Commandments spoof, The Ten to star Paul Rudd. This is, of course, partly due to having time off for becoming a father, as well wanting to cover Radio 4's Silverscreen Beats series on the music of various Jesus films, as well as there being a fair bit of news about forthcoming Jesus films such as The Nativity Story, and the BBC's Passion. Anyway, it's clearly time to redress the balance.

Recently, I picked up a copy of John Huston's auto-biography "An Open Book" (which you can search inside at Amazon). My main point of interest was of course his discussion of his 1966 film The Bible: In the Beginning which is one of my favourite Old Testament films, and which I discussed briefly in my review of films about Genesis. Huston, as the title suggests, is fairly open about the various comings and goings, and is much more interested in telling stories surrounding the production that giving a careful shot by shot analysis of every scene. Although he later denied any similarity with Cecil B. DeMille, they do, at least, have this in common.1

Huston raises a number of interesting points. Firstly, he clearly has a love for animals, and readily gives the impression that the part of the film he enjoyed most was the scenes of Noah's Ark. Of course, ultimately Huston himself played Noah, and incorporated into the final film several of the quirky habits of some of his four legged friends such as the elephant that uses his trunk to force Huston to stroke him some more, the hippo who would open his mouth as soon as he heard Huston approach, and the giraffes that would block his path until he fed them sugar. Despite his love of animals, and the high level of care and personal attention he gave to them before and during filming, Huston originally had wanted Charlie Chaplin for the role.
It would have been a strange choice, although perhaps it explains the strangely anachronistic scene where Noah gets a bucket of pitch stuck on his foot, and slides down the ark's sloping deck. That scene has always felt so out of keeping with the feel of the rest of the film. The other actor Huston wanted for the role was Alec Guinness who was at the time, popularly known as much for his (Ealing) comedy as his more serious work.

My favourite sequence of the film is the creation scene, and Huston explains how they spent quarter of a million on these opening few minutes alone. The scenes were not shot by Huston, but by stills photographer Ernst Haas, who had no experience of motion picture photography and had to go on a crash course before flying to the far corners of the globe to get his footage. Huston explains how he wanted these scenes to be shown...
...not as a single event at the beginning of time, but as a continuing, eternal process. Each morning is a new creation - something now and forever.
What is impressive about these, in addition to the jaw dropping beauty of the images, is the way they so skilfully plot a course between a seven-day literalist interpretation on the one hand, and more metaphorical readings on the other. Just like the written text, the viewer looks at the raw material and is able to apply their own interpretation. In fact, the whole film works in a similar way. the great strength of this film is how it manages to be rigidly literal to the text, whilst simultaneously suggesting a mythical reading.

When interviewed about the film, Huston was almost always asked if he believed the bible literally, and he obligingly includes his stock response that

Genesis represented a transition from Myth, when man, faced with creation and other deep mysteries, invented explanations for the inexplicable; to Legend, when he attributed to his forebears heroic qualities of leadership, valor and wisdom; to History, when, having emerged from Myth and Legend, accounts of real exploits and events of the past were handed down from father to son before the written word.
The reading of Genesis marking a movement from myth to legend to history is not uncommon, in fact CS Lewis expressed a similar view in his essay "Is Theology Poetry" for "Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical - hanging in the clouds: but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah's Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate.
(You can read more of this here)

Huston does reveal a few of the tricks of the film. The tower of babel was shot on two sets in two different countries. The base was built on the studio's back lot (presumably in Italy), whilst the summit was built on the top of a steep slope outside Cairo. However, to give the impression of a tall tower whilst filming at the base they used a glass shot (painting the top of the tower, in correct perspective, on a piece of glass positioned in front of the camera). He also discusses in some detail the process used to create the (seemingly unedited) creation of Adam sequence using three clay casts built by sculptor Giacomo Manzu.

There are also a few interesting quotes. He recounts, for example, what is probably his most famous cry during filming "I don't know how God managed, I'm having a terrible time". It would appear that this was caused more by George C. Scott and the Egyptian authorities, than by animals behaving as they shouldn't.

There are also a number of quotes on the nature of his faith. Perhaps the most extensive is his answer to the question "Do you believe in God?"
in the beginning, the Lord God was in love with mankind and accordingly jealous. He was forever asking mankind to prove our affection for Him: for example, seeing if Abraham would cut his son's throat. But then, as eons passed, His ardor cooled and He assumed a new role--that of a beneficient deity. All a sinner had to do was confess and say he was sorry and God forgave him. The fact of the matter was that He had lost interest. That was the second step. Now it would appear that He'd forgotten about us entirely. He's taken up, maybe, with life elsewhere in the universe on another planet. It's as though we ceased to exist as far as He's concerned. Maybe we have.

The truth is I don't profess any beliefs in an orthodox sense. It seems to me that the mystery of life is too great, too wide, too deep, to do more than wonder at. Anything further would be, as far as I'm concerned, an impertinence.
You can read more of Huston's quotes on religion, faith and God here.

1-Madsen, A., John Huston: A Biography, Doubleday and Company: Garden City, New York (1978), p. 212

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Abraham - Scene Guide

Yesterday I posted a review for Abraham, having written a few initial thoughts on Monday. Anyone interested in a second opinion might want to read Peter Chattaway's review originally written for Christian Info. News, back in July 1996. Peter's got a better grasp of the history of that period than me, and so he's a little more critical of the historical errors he sees.

Anyway, here is the scene guide for the film
Part 1
Extra-biblical episodes (loosely Genesis 11:26-32)
Call of Abram - (Gen 12:1-3)
Abram and Sarai leave Haran - (Gen 12:4)
Extra-biblical episodes
Altar built at Bethel - (Gen 12:7)
Clash with the Amorites - (Gen 12:6)
Famine in the land - (Gen 12:10)
Sarai given to Pharaoh - (Gen 12:10-16)
Extra-biblical episode
Pharaoh falls ill and expels Abram - (Gen 12:17-20)
Abram allied with Mamre the Amorite- (Gen 14:13b)
Abram and Lot separate - (Gen 13:5-18)
Lot captured - (Gen 14:11-12)

Part 2
Abram recounts Tower of Babel - (Gen 11:1-9)
Abram rescues Lot - (Gen 14:13-16)
Abram and the king of Sodom - (Gen 14:17)
God's covenant with Abraham - (Gen 15:1-20)
Abram and Melchizedek - (Gen 14:18-20)
Hagar and Sarai - (Gen 16:1-16)
Covanent of Circumcision - (Gen 17:1-27)
The Three Visitors - (Gen 18:1-15)
Abraham bargains for Sodom - (Gen 18:16-33)
Sodom sins and is destroyed - (Gen 19:1-28)
Birth of Isaac - (Gen 21:1-7)
Hagar and Ishmael sent away - (Gen 21:8-14)
Extra-biblical episode
Hagar and Ishmael in the desert - (Gen 21:15-21)
God tests Abraham - (Gen 22:1-19)

A Few Notes
It's noticeable that the film takes 50% of its runtime on just two and a half chapters (and even then only 2 verses from the half). By contrast the second half of the film covers seven and a half chapters worth of narrative.

The only major incident not included in this film is that from Gen 20 where Abraham again tries to pass of Sarai as his sister. This may well be because some scholars consider this to be an alternative version of the same story. Such an interpretation certainly seems to make Abram's repeated disowning of his wife more understandable. That said, the differences are also significant - differences of location, the man in question, the way Abimelech hears from God rather than getting a disease first, and the way Abraham prays for Abimelech's wife and slave girls at the story's end. This last incident is one of my favourites in the whole story. Sarah is still without her own son, at this point, which must have pained both her and Abraham. Yet Abraham finds the strength to lay these feelings aside and pray for Abimelech's wife and slave girls that they would receive the miracle that has eluded Abraham and Sarah all these years. I wonder how many times Abraham must have prayed this prayer for his own wife?

By contrast to it's exclusion of the Abimelech story, the film does include each of the occasions when God speaks to Abraham, even though there is some repetition here also.

Finally, its interesting how the portrays the crimes of Sodom. these are first depicted early on after Abraham rescues Lot, when some sort of homosexuality is awkwardly displayed. This is repeated once the two angels visit the city. However, the crime itself, still seems to be the more likely scriptural interpretation of "attempted gang rape". In some ways, then, the film wants to have it's cake and eat it, neither offending the homosexual community by showing homosexual acts as the sin that condemns Sodom, whilst failing to remove the suggestion that homosexual acts were a part of the problem. Reading this on a deeper level, this resultant linking of homosexuality to gang rape is potentially far more offensive than either of those on its own. It's also interesting how the film shows Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salf (right). This is shown but receives very little comment. There's some subtle suggestion that what happens to Sodom is linked to volcanic activity, but this is never explicitly shown or stated.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Abraham (1994)

Abraham was the first film produced by Lorenzo Minoli, back in 1994, as part of what would become the Bible Collection. Eventually it led to 12 other films being made which were based on stories from the Old and New Testaments, as well as an additional 4 stories fictionalising the lives of those who were "close to Jesus".

It was an auspicious start. Abraham has generally been neglected in film, with only a handful of portrayals over the 110 or so years the cinematic medium has been around. Director Joseph Sargent's (most well known for Jaws: The Revenge) acquisition of Richard Harris and Barbara Hershey (just five years after Last Temptation of Christ) to play his leads must have been a major triumph. Sargent himself shows far more ability here than in his dead-in-the-water shark flick, with interesting camera angles and use of light, most notably when the newly enlightened Abram tells his father (still in the dark) that he must leave (see below right).

There is some great work by a number of other members of the team on display here as well. The score, by Ennio Morricone (The Mission and numerous other films from the Bible Collection) subtly underpins much of what we see and hear. Raffaele Mertes shimmering cinematography makes the desert feel relentless and frustrating, such that there's a tangible sense of release whenever Abraham's people find water and food.

As a group of films, the Bible Collection had three major strengths. Firstly, they tried to stress the historical context around the stories. This is somewhat unevenly achieved here, the opening scenes which include Lot's wife giving birth, covenants being broken and made, and the huge cohort that follow Abram around, certainly flesh out some of the background to this narrative. The film nicely captures the nothingness of Abram's life before God. His god was simply unknown to people prior to his call to Abram in Genesis 12.

That said, as the film progresses the histoircal strengths of the film seems to fade a little. For example, there is indication that Abraham lived in a culture where child sacrifice was not uncommon. This certainly changes the impact of the text somewhat, which never indicates an angsty reluctance on Abraham's part. Removing the story from this context, and portraying Abraham as a proto-21st century father is, of course, very common, but it politicises the text into form easily manipulated by preachers. "Do you love God enough to sacrifice the things you hold most dear"? It's an important question of course, but the story can be read in other ways.

Secondly, they have tried to include episodes that many bible films gloss over. Here, for example, Abraham does lie to the King of Egypt, even though here the story is spun to show that Abram needed to do this in order to save his starving, thirsty people. We also meet Melchizedek (below right), priest and king of Salem. It's important that such episodes are included in these stories, and script writer Robert McKee has worked hard to maintain the audience's empathy with Abraham, postulating plausible back stories to justify Abraham's actions.

Finally the Bible Collection films have tried to flesh out the characters involved in the stories, using a combination of extra-biblical historical sources, speculation, and good old imagination. Sometimes this has not been so successful, but here, for example, the way that the background figure of Eliezer of Damascus (Genesis 15:2) is brought into the story in such a way to explain his otherwise mysterious biblical credit is intriguing. The closing line, about Ishmael and Isaac (that "on his tomb they joined hands") seemingly based on a line in Josephus.

The relationship between Hagar and Sarai (and later Abraham) is also interestingly developed, although Hagar is painted badly so it's easy not to sympathise with her when Abraham sends her and Ishmael away. Overall the film meanders it's way through the first half of the film, taking time to explore, and familiarise itself with, its characters before putting them under the microscope of the events that occurred to them.

Arguably the most memorable passage from the various stories of Abraham and Lot is his aborted attempt to sacrifice Isaac. This forms the pinnacle of this film that the rest of it builds towards. Whereas Genesis continues to look at how Abraham arranges Isaac's marriage, buries Sarah, and marries Keturah, this film climaxes with God's timely intervention. The narrative has flowed surely but steadily towards such a climax. Abraham and Sarah's desperation for a son through the first three-quarters of the film is unrelenting. Several of the transitions between the various episodes show Abraham alone, burning various sacrifices to his god. On one occasion we even see Abraham teaching Ishmael about sacrifice in a way that hauntingly pre-figures Abraham's near sacrifice of that held most dear to him.

Perhaps the weakest are of the film are the battle scenes, which feel a little drawn out, and disrupt the rhythm of the film. Whilst the film pre-dates Braveheart and the revival of the epic film, and so cannot be called for being yet another copycat job, it still seems to lack the necessary tension to make them interesting. These scenes never seem to carry any sense of danger.

Overall though, Abraham is a worthy telling of the life of the father of the three great monotheistic faiths, finding both strength and weakness in it's lead character, and providing much of the context that surrounded him.

Monday, May 8, 2006

A Few Thoughts on Abraham

I watched the Bible Collection's Abraham (1994) last night and had planned to get some more formal comments up this morning. Sadly, a plumbing related disaster this morning has robbed me of the necessary time this morning, so I'll have to return to that another day. Meanwhile, I thought I'd just offer a few comments on the actual story of Abr(ah)am indirectly prompted by the film.

Firstly, the most famous incident in Abraham's life is his aborted sacrifice of Isaac. In thinking about this film over the weekend I can't help wondering what Sarah's knowledge of the situation was. Did Abraham tell her before what he was planning? Did she give her consent? Did either Isaac or Abraham tell her afterwards. For some reason my mind wandered onto an image of Terry Jones playing Sarah hearing an account from Abraham of the events of the afternoon. "You were going to do what?!!? 60 years it took me...".*

On a more serious note, the more I consider this story, the more it only makes sense within a context where child sacrifice is common. This is subtly hinted at in Genesis 19 where Lot is all too willing to metaphorically sacrifice his daughters in order to preserve the dignity of his angelic gifts. Sadly this was one area of weakness for this film, which I'll go into more later on. Personally, I find Girard's insights into this story fascinating as the moment that God breaks through the universally accepted practice of child sacrifice, and shows it is not the way to please him. This God is different. I don't know how wholly convincing I find the argument, but it certainly sheds fresh light on the story.


*In a similar vein I also pictured God saying to Abraham, "Dude, I was like totally joking. Man, you'll believe anything".

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

Abraham: Man of Faith

Abraham: Man of Faith is the first biblical story from the Living Bible Collection which was started in 1952 with a 12 half hour episodes about the life of Christ before going back to the beginning of the Old Testament and starting from there in 1958. I have previously reviewed two other entries from the Hebrew Bible; Gideon: The Liberator and Ruth: A Faithful Woman. As far as I'm aware this was only the second ever filmed version of this story after 1911's Le Sacrifice d'Abraham.

It's interesting that this is the first story from the bible that the series covers. Both the stories of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and the flood have proven popular with biblical film-makers, and the pre-cinema storytellers long before them. Two possibilities suggest themselves for this discrepancy; Either, the stories were considered historically rigorous enough (and it seems unlikely that this would be the reason), or, the budget was too small to film Noah, a flood and an ark, and the film-makers couldn't think of a way to film the Adam and Eve story "decently".

The film itself is very conservative, much like the other entries in the series, and this is highlighted in three ways. Firstly, there is very little added to the story - just the standard "Living Bible" introduction, and the occasional explanatory note. Secondly, there is very little deliberate interpretation or exploration of the text, the sub-text, deeper meanings, or alternative readings of the text. Secondly the biblical episodes which have been chosen for this film are those which highlight Abraham's strengths. Those which demonstrate his weaknesses have been excluded. Consider the scene guide below:
God calls Abram to leave his father (Gen 12:1-5)
Abram's sacrifice at Bethel (Gen 12:8-9)
Abram and Lot separate (Gen 13:7-12)
God promises Abram a son (Gen 13:14-17)
God promises a son again (Gen 15:5)
Visit of the three angels (Gen 18:1-15)
Birth of Isaac (Gen 21:1-3)
God tests Abraham (Gen 22:1-13)
God's promise to bless Abraham (Gen 21:16-18)

Note the episodes that are absent - Both occasions were Abram lies about his relationship with Sarah in Egypt, Abram's relationship with Hagar, and the sending away of her and Ishmael, and Abraham bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom. In other words every episode that makes Abraham look bad is excluded, all the stories which portray him in a positive light are included.

Perhaps the most striking example of this depiction glossing over the stories in the bible comes with the attempted sacrifice of Isaac. Isaac is the real hero here calmly accepting his fathers desire to kill him, and passively accepting his fate. There is no attempt either to show Isaac's fear (although admittedly none is reported), nor to put Abraham's actions in a context where child sacrifice is hardly out of the ordinary. Hence any Girardian notion of this act being a new revelation of the type of God Abraham was following is lost.

Finally, the production values are particularly poor in this film. The opening scene, of Abram making a sacrifice seems to be using the very same set that became Gideon's threshing floor. The acting is uniformly terrible, most notably the angel who's utterance of "Yes, you did laugh" couldn't be any more wooden if he had tried. That said there is a nice "God shot" on one of the occasions where Abraham hears God's voice (see above)

It's a shame that the first talking film about Abraham was so poorly executed, as it is truly one of the more interesting and fleshed out characters in the whole Old Testament. Thankfully eight years later the story would get a more thorough treatment as one of the stories in The Bible: In the Beginning, and later as part of the Bible Collection's Abraham (1994)

Sunday, January 15, 2006

The Green Pastures


Peter Chattaway mentioned at his FilmChat blog last year that Green Pastures (1936)was about to be released on DVD, and I notice from Tyler Williams' Codex Blogspot that it is now available to buy (although only in region 1 format).

I was slightly disappointed to hear it as I had only just bought a copy on VHS having held off for years. My wife, Mel, and I decided when we bought a DVD player that we wouldn't be people who replace their collections, so sadly I'll have to stick with VHS for now.

It was one of the films I got to talk about in an interview I did for a documentary due to be shown on Channel 4 this Easter. It was a controversial film when it came out. The Klu Klux Klan sought to get it banned. At the other end of the spectrum, it has been criticised more recently for it's use of "Uncle Tom" style stereotypes. Even the Warner release of the film now carries a disclaimer at the start

It's difficult to judge this film 70 years later. The original release date of this film (1936) was 20 years before the civil rights movement, and is approximately halfway between today, and the end of the American Civil War - race relations have changed so significantly in that 141 years that it's hard to tell how things actually were in 1936.

In my opinion, the fact that the KKK sought to ban the film, and persuaded many cinemas to boycott it, perhaps underlines how progressive a film it was. It was pretty much the first film to portray God, and to depict him as a black man, just 71 years after the end of the civil war, seems a very bold step.

On the other hand portrayal of the other characters is a little more complex. They are portrayed both positively and negatively, but few characters appear to be very intelligent. That said, the majority of the film takes place in the children's imagination, and so it could be argued that flatter more simplistic characterisations might be what we expect.

Time Out notes that it doesn't find the characterisations as offensive as "the way in which the depths of plangent suffering that inspired the spirituals are totally ignored. Instead we get white society's wish-fulfilment image of happy Uncle Toms who will be content with their due reward of a ten-cent cigar and a fish-fry in heaven." That quote reminds me of one my major criticism of the film - it's handling of the Moses story. I'm led to believe that the story of Moses leading his people to freedom from slavery was key in the negro spirituals and the theology that accompanied it, such that it has still retained significance in modern day Black Theology. Sadly the Moses section of the story is drained of all it's resonant associations and significance, presumably for fear of the radical implications of associating black plantation workers with the Hebrew slaves.

Overall I think that if you place the film in it's context you get a bold attempt to move race relations on further. By today's standards it certainly could appear to be regressive or oppressive. However, I'd tentatively suggest that judging it by today's standards is perhaps not appropriate - the content may be a poor portrayal, but the spirit behind it may well be far more progressive that many films today that are aimed at a black audience. That said I recognise that as a white middle class English man, I'm not the best person to judge.

Moving away from the race issue I commented on this film in my article on Genesis Films, where I noted "The Genesis scenes, being seen through a child's imagination make no attempt to be realistic, but their gentle humour, and basic simplicity give the film a spiritual authenticity that is absent from the majority of these films". The soundtrack is great, and there's some really nice gentle humour in the film. At times the script explores aspects of God and the bible that would probably get veggie-taled under the carpet today. This is particularly interesting as the stories are told through the eyes of children, and as a result make the story very accessible for children.

For the record the film covers:

Opening real life scenes
opening dream sequences in heavem
Creation
Cain and Abel
Noah and the Flood
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (as characters rather than their stories)
Moses and the Freeing of the Israelites
A Generic Prophet (not a biblical one, but someone who seems to combine different aspects from various Old Testament Prophets)
Jesus's coming (told theough Da Lawd's reaction)

Matt