Showing posts with label Bible Collection (The). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible Collection (The). Show all posts

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Apocalypse Then

This is an old review I wrote years ago for a different site, which is now no longer available. I just came across it today and thought I might repost it here. I take no responsibility for the content however - I've only had a chance to skim it, and even then I noticed a reference to CGI which is probably completely out of date now.There have been numerous attempts in the last ten to fifteen years to use the book of Revelation as major source material for a screenplay. Predictably, most of the resulting films have landed somewhere between disappointing and just plain awful. The biggest weakness has generally been low production values. However, this has usually been bolstered by detached, futuristic, interpretations of John’s apocalypse in turn creating fictional scripts that speculate on how Revelation’s bizarre imagery will come to pass in “reality”. Unfortunately, this has sustained the impression many hold that Revelation is a bizarre, virtually impenetrable book, leaving those who feel uncomfortable with such alien end of the world scenarios disillusioned with John’s apocalypse altogether.

It’s a relief, then, that Lux Vide’s The Apocalypse locates its story in the past, preferring to focus on John (played by the late great Richard Harris) and the group of churches in Asia he is responsible for. It is against this background that we see John (who is hiding under the pseudonym Theophilus) receive his visions. The task of covering 22 chapters of the biblical text, whilst building sufficient context around it is so huge that the producers wisely boil it down to its key components. For example, the film recognises the parallel nature of the seven seals / seven trumpets / seven bowls sequences, and wisely focuses, almost exclusively, on the first. By book-ending the film, and the main section of Revelation’s content, with abbreviated forms of John’s own bookends, the gist of the apocalypse is left largely in tact. This abbreviation process is also aided by focussing the non-visionary section of the film on just one of John’s seven churches, that in Ephesus.

The previous twelve films in Lux Vide’s ‘Bible Collection’ series were nearly all named after their protagonist. It seems strange, therefore, that they have not followed suit with The Apocalypse, particularly given the associations of poor quality filmmaking and the lunatic fringe such a title brings with it. As the film unfolds, it becomes clear that it is really about John. The non-visionary parts of the story actually take up the most of the film’s screen time.

So its no surprise that the film’s opening shot briefly introduces us to John, before jumping to Domitian’s announcement of his divinity and then to the Ephesian church. There we are introduced to Irene (who met John many years ago) and Valerius, who we soon find out is a Roman spy. Having worked his way into the church in Ephesus, his next mission is to infiltrate the group of Christians working in the mines of Patmos, where John himself is rumoured to be imprisoned. Domitian hopes that finding John and executing him, combined with a rigorous campaign of violence against the church in Asia, he will be able to stamp out the Christian faith altogether.

Inevitably there are also a few factual quibbles. For example, most scholars question whether the John who wrote Revelation was the same John who was one of Jesus’ original twelve apostles and the reign of Domitian has clearly been shaped to suit the overall narrative. However, this type of deviation is really just a by-product of disseminating the material for a wider audience, which the film does admirably well.

Where the plot really lets itself down is when it begins to deviate from its starting point, overcomplicating matters by introducing sub-plots of escape, power-struggles, pseudonymity and romance - not to mention the painfully inevitable conversion of Valerius. The two main aims of these sub-plots appear to be to add extra interest to the story, and to emphasise just how wise John was. The former falls flat on its face whilst the latter seems largely unnecessary, leaving little grounds for their inclusion.

The film’s other major flaw is its use of CGI. The film’s release has been delayed by two years and during this time CGI come on in leaps and bounds. However, even accounting for that, much of the CGI seems either forced, anachronistic or just poorly executed. The project’s demands are huge – alternating between realistic scenes on earth and supernatural scenes in heaven – and although it’s a worthy effort, the CGI is sadly not up to it. Hence, The Apocalypse is unlikely to be a film that cinephiles, theologians or historians embrace too closely (even though it embraces the style of interpretation favoured by most scholars).

It is to be hoped that such weaknesses can be forgiven by audiences because it is an important film. Artistic interpretations of the Revelation have almost always focussed on the bizarre aspects of the text. This has resulted in the book being gradually nudged towards the fringes of Christian belief where it is less of an embarrassment. Where this project excels is by locating the imagery in its original context so that potential applications of its message to 21st century Christianity can begin to emerge.

The film is an important starting point, turning back the clock on centuries of misinterpretation and over-active imagination. So whilst there are a few weaknesses and potential quibbles, its overall thrust should be loudly applauded.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Jeremiah Notes on Scene Guide

I was a little pushed for time on Friday when I posted a scene guide for Jeremiah, so I postponed writing a few notes on it until today.

The first thing to say is that whilst the vast majority of the material is drawn from the book Jeremiah, there are a few places where the film draws on parts of 2 Kings to fill in the historical gaps.

It's also interesting to note that most of the material taken from Jeremiah, aside from the opening, is taken from chapters 20-30. There's not a single reference from chapters 40-49 (where Jeremiah is mainly cursing the other nations), and only one from 10-19 (Jer 16:1-4). This passage - where Jeremiah is told not to take a wife - and Jer 34:8-11 - where Mattaniah frees the slaves before reversing the decision some time later - are used to insert the film's only real extra-biblical sub-plot where Jeremiah falls in love. This is actually a fairly common device employed by The Bible Collection's films, and in some of the other cases the picture is severely derailed as a result. Here the filmmakers manage to keep it under control so it forms interesting speculation that highlights Jeremiah's sad and introspective character.

Working out this scene guide does give me more of a feel for just how jumbled the book's chronology is. Of course some of this is down to the filmmakers rather than the source material, but material from the siege of Jerusalem, for example, is really spread around in such a way as to make me wonder why. Is there a purpose to this ordering, or was this just not considered important or in any way useful?Overall I think the film does a great job of summarising Jeremiah and putting him in his historical context, and it manages to include most of the book's famous passages. One surprising omission, however, is the story of Jeremiah at the potter's house and the attached sayings (Jer 18:1–23). The film does include the vision of the upturned pot, and perhaps the writers thought that too many pot symbols might be confusing. Even so, I would have thought the potter's house passage would have been the one to be selected.

There are a few things I noticed about the call of Jeremiah. Firstly, the film enhances Jeremiah's call with elements from the call of Isaiah (Is 6). In the book of Jeremiah, there's no mention of a vision, and God touching Jeremiah's lips appears to be more of a metaphor than anything else. We're also not told where this call took place. In the film, however, Jeremiah also sees a vision, twice, and on both occasions it occurs in the temple. It's interesting that the second of these quotes part of Jer 5:14 "I have put my words in your mouth", but cuts off before the use of the word "fire". Instead this element is represented visually as part of Jeremiah's call.

There is actually a further part of Jeremiah's call - the vision of the almond tree, but I noticed that the interpretation of this vision alters some of the details of this vision. The text simply says that the sign means that God is "watching to see that my word is fulfilled". But the film expands this to say "as this tree is in a hurry to sprout, so God is in a hurry to carry out his work".

Lastly, I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Jeremiah - Scene Guide

I've been working away on a scene guide for the Bible Collection's Jeremiah ever since I re-watched it a couple of months ago. Of all the scene guides that I have done to date, this has certainly been the most difficult to put together. Not only is Jeremiah the Bible's longest book (based on number of words), but it's chronology becomes increasingly unlinear the closer you look. Furthermore, an odd verse can carry a great deal of narrative weight, but trying to find it, even with the wonders of the internet, can be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As well as my guide that follows below, I would also like to recommend an excellent outline of this film by Neil MacQueen. MacQueen's outline gives timings and descriptions rather than verses like my own, so the two complement each other quite well.
Book of the Law Found - (2 Kings 22)
Jeremiah's ancestry - (Jer 1:1)
Josiah's Passover - (2 Kings 23:21-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Josiah enters Jerusalem]
Call of Jeremiah - (Jer 1:4-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Nebuchadnezzar crowned]
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's Girlfriend]
Prophecy of the Almond Tree - (Jer 1:11-12)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's first sacrifice]
Prophetic vision/2nd call - (Jer 4:22; 5:28-29, 14)
Jeremiah prophesies at the temple - (Jer 7:1-11)
Jeremiah beaten - (Jer 20:1-2)
Overturned pot - (Jer 1:13-19)
Jeremiah told not to take a wife - (Jer 16:1-4) (complains)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah meets Baruch]
Prophecy about fall of Jerusalem - (Jer 22:1-5)
King tears and burns the scroll. - (Jer 36:1–24)
Jermiah asks Baruch to re-write scroll - (Jer 36:28)
Babylon invades Jerusalem - (2 Kings 24:1-12)
Temple stripping & deportation - (2 Kings 24:13-17, Jer 27:19-20)
Jeremiah the ox-yoke and Hananiah - (Jer 27:1-28:17)
Jeremiah imprisoned in courtyard - (Jer 32:1-3; 36:31)
Jeremiah calls for surrender - (Jer 21:1-9)
Mattaniah frees the slaves - (Jer 34:8-10)
Jeremiah put in prison - (Jer 37:11–16)
Mattaniah unfrees the slaves - (Jer 34:11)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Judith killed]
Jeremiah's complaint - (Jer 20:7-9)
Jerusalem under siege - (Jer 52:1-6)
Mattaniah seeks God's word - (Jer 37:17-20)
Word against Jerusalem - (Jer 21:10)
Officials speak against Jeremiah - (Jer 38:4-5)
Promise of Return - (Jer 32:37-40)
Jeremiah calls again for surrender - (Jer 20:4, 38:17-20)
Jeremiah thrown in a cistern - (Jer 38:6)
Ebed Melech frees Jeremiah - (Jer 38:7:13; 39:15-18*)
Jeremiah confronts Mattaniah - (Jer 23:1-2, 38:17-21)
Jeremiah buys a field - (Jer 32:6-15)
Babylon capture Jerusalem - (Jer 39:1-3, 52:6-7)
Mattaniah captured fleeing - (Jer 39:4-5, 52:7-9)
Mattaniah's sons killed, blinded - (Jer 39:5-7, 52:10-11)
Jeremiah freed - (Jer 39:11-12)
Jerusalem destroyed - (Jer 39:8-10)
God promises to rebuild the temple and the people's hearts - (Jer 31)
Notes
I've chosed to call Jeremiah's primary royal opponent by his original name Mattaniah, rather than the name Zedekiah which was given to him by Nebuchadnezzar as this is what the film calls him throughout. Interestingly scripture mainly calls him Zedekiah.

I have a few more points that I'd like to make on this, but I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll return to this task next week.

Edit: This can now be found here.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah

As I've mentioned here in the past I currently lead a course called Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years where we look at a different book of the Bible every month. In July we'll be looking at Esther and given how this story is a popular one with filmmakers (see all posts on Esther films), and how our baby is due any minute, I thought I might use some extended clips from one or two of them.

One of the Esther films I have always liked is the Bible Collection's version. It was one of the first in the series I watched, and it was perhaps the first time that I realised that the early part of the story wasn't some fairy tale love story, but that of state-sanctioned rape. It's possible that Esther enjoyed the glamour of it all, but the Bible certainly doesn't mention that. (Having said that even this film hints at a love story. Note the shot above - the first time the camera gazes upon Esther - and how the intimate close up and soft focus suggest romance). Naturally, then, this is one of the clips I'm thinking about showing, so last night I began to re-watch it.

The first thing I noticed was that both Ezra (below) and a young Nehemiah appear in this film. This was a little frustrating as I had hunted for relevant film clips during the last two months, if only to find a suitable image for the Through the Bible... blog. But having studied those books in some depth now it was interesting to see how the film treated the characters.Of the two, it's Ezra who gets the most screen time. Ezra's a friend (or disciple?) of Mordecai and we meet him even before we meet Esther. As a thief is dragged away by the Persian guards, Mordecai voices his dismay at the likely severity of the thief's punishment; he will have his hand cut off. When Ezra replies that such is the Persian way Mordecai begins to reply. "It's not the harshness Ezra, it's the absence of clemency. We Jews should remember when we write our own laws..." but he is then cut off by the arrival of Haman.

There's a fair bit packed into Mordecai's statement. Firstly, it clarifies that this Ezra is the same man who will go on to lead the Jewish people, and establish them as a people who (actually) follow the law. Lest their be any doubt, a little later he advises Mordecai not to let Esther "marry a foreigner". But there's more to it than that. Whilst the books of Ezra and Nehemiah present their leading man taking the people back to the law of Moses, there are also a few differences. Scholars disagree as to how much input Ezra had in the process, and whilst Deuteronomy seems to have been a written text by the time of Josiah, some claim that not much else was actually in written form by this point. Mordecai's statement seems to suggest that the laws weren't written by that point, and that Ezra was amongst those responsible for writing them down.

But there's more to it as well. Whilst Mordecai is shown as older and wiser, it doesn't appear that Ezra takes a great deal of notice of him. Indeed it's generally a very unflattering portrayal of Ezra; he comes across as arrogant and judgemental. There's very little compassion and this tends to be underlined by the actor's harsh an unattractive face. So the film doesn't seem to think a great deal of Ezra and is keen to show that not everyone was behind his abrasive approach to reform.Nehemiah's appearance (above) is briefer and he appears much younger than Ezra. There's some debate as to which of these two men acted first, but the film seems to back the theory that Ezra came first and needed Nehemiah's work to complete the job. This again suggest a fairly low opinion of Ezra. Those who value his input more highly tend to suggest that he was completing Nehemiah's work and not vice versa.

Nehemiah is also portrayed more positively. Whilst still not classically good looking he has a soft, endearing face, and his demeanour suggests he is humble, receptive and teachable. He is, of course, being tutored in the art of wine tasting, but there's enough in this brief vignette to hint at how this Nehemiah's future might pan out.

There were a few other points that I noticed. Firstly, in the film Ezra links Haman to the Amalekites of King Saul's time. This is something I'd missed before, and probably only picked up because it's significance is enhanced in the 2006 Esther film One Night With the King. Both films draw on a Jewish tradition that considered the Amalekite King Agag (whom Saul spares and Samuel kills in 1 Sam 15) to be the ancestor of Haman who is described in Esther 3:1 as "Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite".The film actually pays quite a lot out of attention to the various names. For example, as with the Bible, Esther is originally called Hadassah, but as she is taken to the palace Mordecai tells her to change her name to Esther - a Persian name. Later on the chief Eunuch, Hegai, somewhat awkwardly, expounds the meaning of the name. It's a variation on the name Ishtar - the Babylonian goddess of love. It's kinda funny that originally this name was chosen to sound un-Jewish, and yet these days Esther it's considered a classic Jewish name.

The film also calls Esther's husband Ahasuerus. This is in line with the original texts, but most translations these days use Xerxes instead. Whilst it's likely that Ahasuerus and Xerxes are one and the same, I'm glad the film sticks with what's in the text rather than try and interpret it in order to make the story seem definitively historical.

All this and I'm only about 40% of the way through the film! I do seem to recall that the opening part of the film is the strongest, but we'll have to see. The film is already quite different to how I remember.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Thoughts on Jeremiah (1998)

I got an email asking me for my thoughts on The Bible Collection's Jeremiah (1998) so I thought I may as well post them here so anyone else who's interested could read them as well. First off, I must admit that it's been a while since I watched this film in its entirety, so I reserve the right to change my mind about it when next I watch it.

Overall this is one of my favourite entries in the Bible Collection series. This may be partly due to the fact that it was one of the first in the series I watched and therefore things like the (seemingly) obligatory introduction of a love interest didn't bother me to the same extent as it did 10 or so films later.

The other main reason I liked it was far more positive. Prior to watching it I knew very little about Jeremiah, and considered his work rather dull. I believe that it's the longest book in the Bible if you count the number of words rather than the number of chapters. And most of it is fairly miserable prophecies. There's the odd high point - lots of people love to quote 29:11 (usually out of context) - but it's a hard book to really get into both because of it's size and it's make up. It's the biblical studies equivalent of exploring Russia.That said, what the film did for me was draw my attention to just how much narrative there is in the book; to make the links between Jeremiah and the other bits of the Old Testament that I was more familiar with; and to give me the broader context in which to read Jeremiah's prophecies. Most of the information was already there, but now I could see how it fitted together - perhaps the equivalent of being given a good map of Russia, or even a Lonely Planet guide or something.

There are a few memorable scenes in the film. One image that stands out is the discovery of the lost book of the law in the days of Josiah. This is shot from both inside and outside the sealed compartment which it has been stored in all these years. There's some question as to whether this passage should be taken as literally as the film takes it, but it's a memorable interpretation nevertheless. The PoV shot taken from inside the compartment almost makes the lost scroll a character in itself. It draws attention to the scroll's story, lost and neglected for years and now finally liberated.Another sequence that sticks in the mind is the one in which Jeremiah hears God's call. This is shown as a flashback if I recall correctly, and the child actor employed in the role of young Jeremiah does a decent job.

I mentioned the love interest above, but I seem to recall a scene where Jeremiah and his girlfriend are separated which is fairly powerful. It I remember rightly this spurs Jeremiah on to follow God's call more strongly. It's all extra-biblical of course, but it's an interesting hypothetical character motivation, and adds to the sense of melancholy that comes through so powerfully from Jeremiah's writings.Other memorable moments include those where Oliver Reed's General Safan throws Jeremiah in a hole, where Jeremiah prophecies with a yolk around his neck and the scene where his prophetic writings are thrown into the fire bit by bit. The film draws to a close around the time of the exile to Babylon under Zedekiah / Mattaniah and these scenes are also fairly striking.

There are a few other places that anyone wanting to read more about this film should check. Firstly the Prayer Foundation have a review featuring a few extra photos. There's also a few comments by Peter Chattaway at Canadian Christianity. Lastly there is some footage of the film available at Video Detective - it's the trailer for a 4 film set which also includes Esther, Solomon and Genesis: Creation and Flood.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

St Peter (2005) DVD release (Starring Omar Sharif)

Omar Sharif starred in two of last year's Bible Films - the cinematically released and the TV series and I've just caught wind of a third Sharif Bible film released in March of this year (although produced in 2005). St. Peter is another Bible film from the seemingly inexhaustible Lux Vide (who brought us The Bible Collection) and stars Sharif in the lead role. Here's the blurb from the press release:
As a dedicated follower of Christ, Peter spreads the message of the Christians across the land, often staying only a few steps ahead of those determined to persecute him. As tensions between the Christians and Romans grow, the apostles lose St. Paul to crucifixion. On the road to Damascus, Peter comes face to face with a stranger, who shows him that he must put himself on the cross, for only martyrdom can bring peace to Rome.
Back in 2005, there was a report in The Guardian about this film. Sharif's comments had apparently led an al-Qaida linked website to advise its readers to kill him. Sharif converted to Islam in the 50s, but said playing Peter was "so important for me that even now I can only speak about it with difficulty. It will be difficult for me to play other roles from now on". He also claimed "to hear voices" during filming.

Peter Chattaway has just reviewed the film for BC Christian News. It appears it's a mix of Acts of the Apostles and Quo Vadis? and whilst he finds Sharif as the 30 year old Peter unconvincing he does praise "the sensitivity of his performance".

It'll be interesting to compare this film with St. Paul (known as Paul the Apostle in the US) which I made a few brief comments about in my post on Galatians vs Acts in Film.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Joseph of Nazareth (2000)

Whilst the number of films about the Virgin Mary could hardly be called excessive, Joseph of Nazareth (2000) is the first film ever to make her husband the central figure. This is no doubt due to church tradition which, whilst it has honoured both Mary and Joseph, has given Mary special reverence. Interestingly, only two of the four gospels include an account of Jesus birth, and their authors choose to tell the story from differing perspectives. Luke's account places Mary at the centre of his prologue. So the narrative starts with a tale about Mary's relatives who will later take her in once Gabriel has told her of God's plan. We are given Mary's responses (immediately, and at length in the words of the Magnificat), detail about the birth where it is she who swaddles Jesus, and later ponders what has happened.

By contrast, Matthew's account deals with the story from Joseph's perspective. The opening genealogy immediately establishes his credentials, and we are quickly assured of his righteousness. The annunciation is only implied, but Joseph receives no less than four dreams. Joseph is cast then in a heroic role, righteous, not wishing to disgrace Mary, and then cast as the active husband whose faithful and decisive actions rescue their child from peril.

So, all in all, Joseph's chance to have a leading role is long overdue, and with thirteen bible films already under their belt, the Bible Collection clearly decided they were the people to do it, including it as part of their "Close to Jesus" series.

Like many of the Bible Collection films, Joseph of Nazareth fuses the biblical narratives with fictional exposition, quotations from other passages of the bible, and relevant extra-biblical history. The latter, as elsewhere, is presented in compressed form, so the deaths of Herod's conspiring sons, occurs at the same time as Mary's pregnancy whereas in reality these events unfolded over a five year period some time before a likely date for Jesus's birth.

Unlike many of the other Bible Collection films, however, it avoids turning the relationship between Mary and Joseph into some kind of soap opera romance, a smart move which enables deeper emotions to surface. Sadly, other aspects of the film do not fair so well. Joseph just happens to be the best carpenter in the nation, so much so that he is hauled off to do some woodwork for Herod at the same moment the angel is appearing to Mary. The scene where Joseph haggles with a despicable innkeeper is simply terrible. Furthermore, at the moment of Jesus's birth, Joseph just happens to have popped out to collect some firewood. Then there is Joseph dashing over the rocks with baby Jesus to escape one of Herod's soldiers. Fortunately, the soldier in question proves to be a cross between Gollum and Buster Keaton and falls to his death chasing after a ornate necklace Joseph just happened to have to hand. Finally, the incident where Jesus as a boy is left at the temple proves to be so stressful that it leads to Joseph's death, although this may be just his disappointment that the Son of God turns out to be so annoying.

Added to this is the uneven acting, which is embodied, in particular, in Tobias Moretti's portrayal of Joseph. Moretti absolutely nails some scenes yet seems to flounder in others. Stefania Rivi's Mary is perhaps the best overall performance in the film, but there are far too many at the other end of the scale. Worst of all is the role of Herod's seer, who turns in what is possibly the hammiest performance in any biblical film. It doesn't help that as he is led away to be executed Herod's sycophantic courtiers re-enact the laughing scene from Austin Powers.

One of the issues that is often discussed surrounding the nativity story is that of Mary's perpetual virginity. Orthodox and Roman Catholic believers hold that those listed in Matt 13:55 were either Jesus's cousins, or Joseph's children from an earlier marriage. The film dabbles in these traditions, but ultimately seems to dismiss them. In the opening scenes Joseph reveals he had previously been betrothed, but tragedy struck before he had married. Similarly, we are introduced to Joses, Simon and Judas, who are Joseph's nephews, but Judas and Joses are killed before the end of the film. Simon survives, but there is no mention of Jesus's sisters, nor the most important of his relations, James, who went on to lead the early church. It's a strange position to adopt, seemingly leaving Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians all unsatisfied.

It's not all bad however, the opening scenes, and those of the betrothal and the annunciation are believably and sensitively realised. At 37, Joseph considers himself too old for this young Mary, agreeing to marry her more as a favour to her father than anything else. Yet the film makes their relationship believable. There is plenty of love, but not necessarily romantic or sexual love. Joseph is part father figure, part husband, part friend, and part co-parent. It's a complex relationship, and given the very low regards which our culture has for arranged marriages, it would have been far easier for the film to opt simply for a romance driven relationship. Yet it is to the film's credit that it manages such sympathetic depiction of this relationship. It's just a shame that the strength shown in this aspect is marred by so many weaknesses elsewhere.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Solomon (1997) Scene Analysis

I reviewed Roger Young's Solomon (1997) last week, so here is the corresponding scene analysis. The film is a fairly comprehensive treatment as it starts before Solomon becomes King (1 Kings 1), and continues on to after his death and the reign of his successor. Since only Solomon's birth is mentioned in 2 Samuel, film covers pretty much all of the historical accounts about Solomon. It also interweaves the narrative of his life with quotes from the three books of wisdom associated with him - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.
Part 1
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah plans to become king - (1 Ki 1:5-8)
Abishag selected - (1 Ki 1:1-4)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Bathsheba informs David - (1 Ki 1:9-35)
Solomon anointed king - (1 Ki 1:38-53)
David crowns Solomon - (1 Ki 2:1-9, 1Ch 28:1-21)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Death of David - (1 Ki 2:10-12)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah and Abishag - (1 Ki 2:13-22)
Deaths of Adonijah - (1 Ki 2:23-25)
Joab Takes sanctuary - (1 Ki 2:28-34)
Solomon asks for Wisdom - (1 Ki 3:4-15)
[10 years later]
Solomon sets up tribes - (1 Ki 4:7)
Solomon marries Pharoah's daughter - (1 Ki 3:1)
Solomon's many wives - (1 Ki 11:1)
2 women and a baby - (1 Ki 3:16-28)

Part 2
Solomon builds the temple - (1 Ki 5:1-6:38, 11:28)
Dedication of the temple - (1 Ki 8:1-9)
God appears to Solomon again - (1 Ki 9:1-9)
Queen of Sheba - (1 Ki 10:1-13)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Various proverbs - (Pr 6:6; 30:25, Pr 1:7, Pr 7:2, Pr 22:6, Pr 12:1, Pr 11:12, Pr 12:10, Pr 15:1, Pr 17:14, Pr 17:27-28, Pr 6:16-19)
Sheba's acclamation - (1 Ki 10:6-7)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Song of Solomon - (SoS 1:2)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Quotes from Ecclesiates - (Ec 2:8, Ec 1:8-9, Ec 1:13, Ec 1:18, Ec 2:1-26, Ec 3:20, Ec 3:1-22, Ec 8:14-17, Ec 3:11, Ec 6:11, Ec 9:11, Ec 12:1-8)
Solomon's offering to Ashtoreth - (1 Ki 11:1-6)
God rejects Solomon - (1 Ki 11:9-13)
Jeroboam's Rebellion - (1 Ki 11:29-39)
Solomon tries to kill Jeroboam - (1 Ki 11:40)
Solomon's death - (1 Ki 11:41-43)
Israel Rebels Against Rehoboam - (1 Ki 12:1-17)
Notes
As noted above, the screenplay for this film incorporates phrases from three of the books commonly attributed to Solomon. These fall into three self contained sections. The first covering a variety of Proverbs, the second is a single quote from Song of Songs/ Song of Solomon, and the final section is an abridged summary of Ecclesiastes. There are a number of points to make here.

Firstly, is this self containment neat or lazy? On the one hand it certainly was a lot easier to write this scene analysis than it will be to write one for Peter and Paul. One the other hand it seems unlikely that Solomon would deliver these proverbs in the public, but ad hoc manner he does here.

This links nicely to my second point - what does this film consider the relationship between the finished books we have and the king who is routinely associated with them? Most scholars would consider it unlikely that he was the author of the final versions of these books as we have them, but would consider them to be at least derived from him in some way. The film cleverly lands in fairly neutral territory in this regard. These works have clearly been associated with Solomon, and he delivers them in semi-formal fashion. Yet, at the same time, they are far from being the finished product. The words used resemble the biblical text closely enough to suggest that perhaps someone wrote them down at a later stage, or that Solomon himself had them memorised and was able to recite them to a scribe/write them down himself at a later date.

Thirdly, the abridged summary of Ecclesiastes is very neat, and incorporates much of the book, particularly its order and most famous passages, and flows very smoothly. Ben Cross's acting here also makes this scene very effectively. It would certainly form a nice video clip for a bible study group looking at Ecclesiastes. The same could be said for the passage from Song of Songs.

Finally, whilst the film does very well at depicting Solomon's fall from grace as a gradual process, there is no doubt that the break-up with the Queen of Sheba is displayed as the most significant. It is this event that prompts the words of Ecclesiastes, and sees a significant rift occur between him and his council. This is underlined by the length of time given to this episode (which takes just one chapter in the bible).

It is always telling with a biblical film how they distribute their screen time. The comparison is made simpler by films such as these which divide into two parts. The material depicted here covers approximately twelve chapters from 1 Kings. Yet the halfway point occurs after only the first few chapters. The chapters where Solomon builds the temple are passed over fairly swiftly, before the film then spends quite some time on the romance between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Ch. 10). Admittedly this section is also inflated as this is where the wisdom quotations occur. The film also spends sometime examining the lesser known events of chapters 11 and 12, which is most welcome.

A couple of further observations. Firstly, the dedication of the temple scene is played down somewhat. In Kings, this dedication is accompanied by a major blood sacrifice ("so many sheep and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted" 8:5), and God responds by filling the temple with a cloud (symbolic of his glory). Here there are neither, although a bolt of lightning does strike as the doors are shut.

It's also interesting that whilst this is one of the more honest accounts of these events one thing is still glossed over. The role of Abishag here is changed into some form of herbalist, rather than her somewhat more bizarre role as a human hot water bottle in 1 Kings 1:1-4. Whilst the text is clear that "the king had no intimate relations with her", she certainly went into his bed.

One final alteration to note. In scripture, the arrival of the Queen of Sheba is the next major event after the dedication of the temple, suggesting that the visit is triggered by the dedication (see for example 1 Kings 8:41-43). Solomon's wisdom is in building this temple rather than the case of the 2 women and the baby (what would have happened if neither woman had reacted, or if both had?)

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Solomon (1997)

Solomon has always seemed a strange choice of biblical hero. In fact, it’s questionable whether he is a hero at all. Inheriting a large, politically secure kingdom, and in possession of a God given gift of wisdom, he does little more than solve a tricky dispute, build a temple, and impress the queen of Sheba. One could argue for his contribution to literature, but it’s unclear to most scholars exactly how much he had to do with the wisdom books which bear his name. Conversely, his building projects bankrupted the nation’s goodwill, whilst his marrying 700 wives left him spiritually desolate (presumably someone else planned all the weddings).

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that there are relatively few films about Israel’s most enigmatic monarch. There’s a collection of early silents of course, plus one or two other minor films such as the one made for the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series, but, for years, King Vidor’s Solomon and Sheba (1959) was the only major film treatment of the story.

Thankfully, the Bible Collection did decide it was worth covering, and overall they have far outstripped Vidor’s film (which was little more than an orgy scene padded out with a trite storyline).

Perhaps the major reason for the film’s success is the quality of the acting.
This has been uneven across the Bible Collection as a whole. Whilst the series has used many well-known actors, these have generally been supported by relative unknowns. Rarely have these unknowns performed as well as they do here. Richard Dillane, Ivan Kaye, and Dexter Fletcher – all with only a handful to TV work to their names at the time of filming – are all impressive in the roles of Jeroboam, Adonijah and Rehoboam. Dillane is particularly good as Jeroboam who rises from labourer to Solomon’s closet confidant, and ultimately his successor.

The title role is played by Ben Cross, best known for his portrayal of another Jewish hero, sprinter Harold Abrahams in Chariots of Fire (1981).
Whilst, in real life, it is Abrahams’ counterpart, Eric Liddell, who is best remembered, it is actually Cross’s performance that makes the film so memorable. His burning intensity typifies the drive required of champion sprinters, and his smouldering, glowering stares manage, paradoxically, to leave the viewer both convinced that Abrahams will win whilst fearing that, somehow, he won’t.

Cross’s portrayal here is similarly complex, perfectly capturing a king famed for his wisdom, but crippled by his folly; loved for his vision, but blinded by love. His first few steps are uncertain, but he quickly finds his stride – the transformation is subtle yet utterly convincing. Later on, Solomon drifts away from his God, but the deterioration is depicted so gradually that it is impossible to work out where is really started to go wrong. At one point, Cross’s Solomon is so charismatic that it almost threatens to undo the logic of the narrative. He makes his case for religious tolerance so convincingly, that any social commentary intended by the filmmakers falls by the wayside.

But the film has many other strengths besides its acting. Roger Young has been at the helm for a number of The Bible Collection's best efforts including Moses and Jesus, and his direction is generally good here as well. For example, by placing less reliance on dialogue than looks and mannerisms, the Solomon-Queen of Sheba sub-plot is realised far more convincingly than the extra-biblical romances in many of the other Bible Collection films. At the same time, it is let down by being a little overlong. Whilst this was no doubt to emphasise the pivotal nature of this relationship, that is made quite clear by the following scenes, and the two together tend to hammer home the point a little too much.

What is surprising about these scenes is that they almost entirely eschew quotations from Song of Solomon, in favour of crass, but epic-sounding, dialogue such as "she is my missing arm. No, she is my entire body". Only one line from Song of Solomon stood out - "how much better are your kisses than wine?" Elsewhere, however, the film does a generally good job of incorporating Solomon’s writings into the narrative, thanks to Bradley T. Winter's strong script. The scene following Sheba’s departure, where Solomon recites several portions of the book of Ecclesiastes is particularly effective. There is also a fairly generous helping of proverbs. Thus the film links Solomon to his writings in the following order - Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes - in contrast to Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes which many favour. But then the Bible Collection series has always been good at taking an alternative look at things, and thankfully on this occasion this strength is more than matched by the strength of the film as a whole.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Samson and Delilah (1996) Scene Guide

I recently watched Time Life’s Samson and Delilah from the Bible Collection. Curiously it’s the only film in the series to feature two names (that is unless one counts Creation and Flood. Both films are also the only ones that I’ve seen so far to utilise a narrator). Anyway, I’ll review it in a couple of days, but for now here’s the scene guide with a few comments.
Part 1
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Birth of Samson Predicted - (Judges 13:1-5)
Birth of Samson - (Judges 13:24)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Samson Kills a lion - (Judges 14:5-6)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Jawbone of an Ass - (Judges 15:9-17)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Honey from the Lion - (Judges 14:8-9)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
The Girl from Timnah - (Judges 14:1-19)
Burning if the fields & death of Samson’s Wife & Family - (Judges 15:3-6)

Part 2
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Prostitute of Gaza - (Judges 16:1-3)
Delilah agrees to trap Samson - (Judges 16:5)
Samson falls for Delilah - (Judges 16:4)
Samson tricks Delilah - (Judges 16:6-12)
Delilah betrays Samson - (Judges 16:15-22)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Death of Samson - (Judges 16:23-30)
Burial of Samson - (Judges 16:31)
Notes
Given that this film shares its name with the famous DeMille film, it is worth asking whther this film is a remake of that film, or simply another, separate, re-telling which just happens to share that title. The evidence is not entirely straightforward. On the one hand, this version of the story contains almost all of the biblical material pertaining to Samson, whereas DeMillee's film omits the events leading up to his birth. It also presents some episodes out of order. That said there are a number of other similarities:
* Both have an Israelite girl who loves Samson but who is too pious, faithful and dull for Samson to love back.
* Both Israelite girls have a younger brother who idolises Samson and is to some extent his side kick
* Both have Samson kill the lion in front of Delilah
* Both show that lion-killing out of context
* The actresses playing Delilah both bring with them a certain reputation which enhances her role
* Neither film shows Samson using foxes to burn the Philistine fields
So it would appear that this isn't really a remake - given the sparse amount of material available on Samson, the storylines are very different, as is the role of Delilah. But the infuence of DeMille's film on this one is undeniable

As noted above, almost all of the biblical material is included in this film. The most notable exception is Manoah’s reaction to his wife’s visitation. The omission of this episode actually emphasises the similarities between the birth of Samson and the birth of Jesus, which is further highlighted by references to Samson as "Saviour of Israel".

There are however, a number of small differences. One notable example is the burning of the Philistine fields following Samson’s aborted wedding. In the text Samson, bizarrely, catches 300 foxes ties them in pairs fastening a torch to each pair and releasing them in the fields. The film ignores this complicated detail, (which would have been difficult to get past the animal cruelty advisors anyway!), and simply has Samson burn the fields himself. This seems a more likely act of passionate vengeance, although the strangeness of the episode itself is perhaps the strongest evidence of its historicity. As a side note I found myself hearing Dan Brown’s voice in my head as I watched this scene, "X wondered how many Christians knew that the Firefox web browser got its name from this story"...

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

David (1997) Scene Guide

Here's the corresponding Scene Guide to Robert Markowitz's David, which I reviewed last week. In drawing this up, I'm aware several of the incidents are paralleled in 1 & 2 Chronicles, but I've given preference to the older Samuel, Kings (and Psalms).
Part 1
Death of Saul and Jonathan - (1 Sam 31)
Capture of Jebus - (2 Sam 5:6-16)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Saul meets Samuel - (1 Sam 9)
Samuel anoints Saul - (1 Sam 10)
War with Amonites - (1 Sam 11)
Samuel rebukes Saul - (1 Sam 13)
Saul spares Agog (Amalek) - (1 Sam 15:1-15)
God rejects Saul - (1 Sam 15:16-35)
Samuel Anoints David - (1 Sam 16:1-13)
David plays to relieve Saul - (1 Sam 16:14-23)
(Psalm 23)
David and Goliath - (1 Sam 17)
(Psalm 66)
David & the philistine foreskins - (1 Sam 18)
(Psalm 68)
Michal saves David - (1 Sam 19)
David and Jonathan - (1 Sam 20)
David at Nob - (1 Sam 21)
(Psalm 63)
Saul kills the priests of Nob - (1 Sam 22)
David Nabal and Abigail - (1 Sam 25)
David spares Saul's life - (1 Sam 24 & 26)
(Psalm 57)
Death of Samuel - (1 Sam 25:1)
Amalekites capture Abigail - (1 Sam 30)
(Psalm 94)
The Witch of Endor - (1 Sam 28)
Death of Saul and Jonathan - (1 Sam 31, 2 Sam 1:19)
David Dances - (2 Sam 6)
David refused temple building - (2 Sam 7)
David and Bathsheba - (2 Sam 11:1-5)

Part 2
David and Uriah - (2 Sam 11:6-27)
Nathan rebukes David - (2 Sam 12:1-14)
(Psalm 51)
David's child dies - (2 Sam 12:15-23)
Birth of Solomon - (2 Sam 12:24-25)
[Extra-Biblical Episodes]
Amnon, Tamar and Absalom - (2 Sam 13)
Woman of Tekoa - (2 Sam 14)
Absalom's conspiracy - (2 Sam 15:1-12)
David Flees Absalom - (2 Sam 15:13-37)
(Psalm 83)
Shimei curses David - (2 Sam 16:5-14)
Hushai and Ahithophel - (2 Sam 16:15-17:29)
Death of Absalom - (2 Sam 18)
David returns to Jerusalem - (2 Sam 19)
David names his successor - (1 Ki 1:28-35)
God's promise to David - (2 Sam 7:12-16)
Notes
One of the particular points of interest in this film is the use of the Psalms. Firstly it's a little strange that this up-to-date version of David's life, spoken in modern English, is punctuated every now and then by Psalms taken from the King James Version. What is more interesting is how the tone of those Psalms darkens as the film progresses. The first Psalm David recites is Psalm 23, which, despite its frequent use in funerals, is actually incredibly upbeat. This is a man so sure and confident of the hand of God in his life that he doesn't even fear a hypothetical journey through the valley of the shadow of death, and is more focussed on the table that God has prepared for him than it's less than desirable location.

This is followed by two Psalms that are increasingly concerned by the existence of said enemies, Psalms 66 and 68. By the fourth Psalm (Psalm 63), David is beginning to sound a little more distant from his God, even if he is choosing to offer him worship anyway. That is quickly followed by pleas for mercy (Psalm 57), demands for vengeance (Psalm 94), repentance (Psalm 51), and finally a desperate plea for God to speak / act as the writer's enemies close in on him (Psalm 83). It's fair to say that the progression of these Psalms corresponds to the way the tone of the film develops. This also corresponds roughly to the pattern of David's walk with God found in David and Bathsheba.

There are a few places where there are visual references to other passages from Samuel. For example, whilst the narrative doesn't cover the start of the incident with Nahash the Ammonite, Saul is joined at that point by a number of men who have no right eye (although in the text it implies Saul gets there in time to save them. It depends, I suppose, on quite how long it takes to send pieces of ox to the coasts of Israel!)

That however, may also be part of this film's tendency to de-mythologize the stories. If so, it is an interesting place to start. Perhaps the most striking example of this is in the battle between David and Goliath. Goliath is actually well short of the height given in the text (six cubits and a span - over nine foot), still large compared to David, but no so extraordinary. It does bring to mind the way Gregory Peck's David suggests that even in his lifetime Goliath's height has been exaggerated, only for the film's climatic flashback to actually verify the biblical measurement.

Finally, whilst the film subverts the text in that example, it continues the Bible Collection's squeamishness with Old Testament polygamy. So just as Keturah makes no appearance in Abraham (Gen 25:1), and the Cushite wife of Moses (Num 12:1) is similarly absent, we see something similar here. Firstly, Ahinoam (David's third wife - 1 Sam 25:42) is entirely absent, even though the preceding story, where David marries Abigail (1 Sam 25:1-41) is included, as is the following verse explaining that Michal had remarried (1 Sam 25:43). Later on we are shown David with three of his wives (the re-instated Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba), but poor Ahinoam is still absent. Finally the narrative ends with God's promises regarding Solomon, rather than the more obvious scene of David's death, thus circumventing the unusual role of Abishag. (1 Kings 1)

Friday, August 25, 2006

David (1997)

Amongst the many heroes and men of good repute in the Hebrew Bible, two stand head and shoulders above the others – Moses and David. The phenomenal success of The Ten Commandments (1956) has given Moses the edge amongst biblical epics. Nevertheless, David has also been a popular figure, from 1909’s Saul and David, through to Bruce Beresford’s King David (1985), the last Bible film to be made by a major Hollywood studio. Over the years films about David have had their pick of good actors, with Gregory Peck and Richard Gere both taking the role of Israel’s finest monarch.

The Bible Collection has produced their own versions of both men’s lives. This time around though, the big names in David are the co-stars, Leonard Nimoy (Samuel) and Jonathan Pryce (Saul). Nimoy is destined to be always remembered as Mr. Spock, and his career has struggled to recover from the extraordinary popularity of one of the TV/cinema’s best known roles. On the other hand, Pryce will be remembered for different films by different people. For some it will be Terry Gilliam’s futuristic nightmare Brazil; For others as James Bond’s enemy in Tomorrow Never Dies; Still others will remember him from Evita, Carrington, Pirates of the Caribbean or, in my case, Selling Hitler.

David himself is played by Nathaniel Parker, who at the time was relatively unknown, but has subsequently gone on to play the lead in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries and Skimpole in the recent BBC version of Bleak House. Strangley however, it’s the lesser known Parker whose other work ends up being the most distracting. The chameleonic Pryce easily adapts to any role he is given, and even Nimoy manages not to evoke too many memories of Mr. Spock. But anyone watching David after Bleak House will find that thanks to Parker’s distinctive features Skimpole is never be far away.

Parker’s performance as David certainly isn’t bad, but for the first half of the film he is acted off the park by Pryce, who excels in every scene he features in. He gives Saul a desperate intensity, soaring with confidence one minute only to be wracked with fear the next.

As with most of the Bible Collection series, the story is split into two ninety-minute episodes. Unusually part 1 commences with the death of Saul, before returning to his calling years earlier, and progressing through to the film’s starting point towards the end of part 1. The stories of David accession to king, and the stories of the early years of his rule are quickly summarised and the story breaks shortly after, partway through the incident with Bathsheba.

The second half opens with David dispatching Uriah and works through the various stories surrounding the subsequent collapse of David’s family. These are the lesser-known, and less dramatic stories from David’s life. As a series, The Bible Collection has sought to bring these more obscure stories back into the limelight, and generally it has worked creditably well. Sadly, here it works less well. Whilst the first half of the film feels like an epic narrative, the second half devolves into something like a family soap opera. The difference between the natural drama of halves 1 and 2 is further emphasised by the deaths of Samuel and Saul shortly before the end of part 1, thus robbing us of the film’s two best and most charismatic actors. When Saul falls on his sword, his absence is felt keenly. New actors come in to play the later roles of Bathsheba, Amnon and Absalom, but their acting is too weak to carry the remainder of the film.

That’s not to say there is nothing to enjoy. David Beatty and Paul Rubell’s editing enhances the drama in several places. The flashback device of the first half gives it a stronger narrative ark, and heightens the tragedy of Saul’s demise. In the second half, one sequence in particular stands out. Scenes of David fleeing across the Jordan, are intercut with those of his son Absalom foolishly frolicking with his concubines. Meanwhile, Absalom’s dejected and ignored advisor Ahithophel hangs himself. The sequence forms the climax of part 2, made all the more impressive by the way Ahithophel’s death deftly pre-figures his master unusual demise shortly after.

Taken in isolation the story of David is ultimately a tragedy. Jonathan, Saul, Uriah, Amnon, Ahithophel and Absalom all die prematurely because of David and Saul’s moments of weakness. The filmmakers have chosen the episodes from David’s life most suitable for emphasising the tragic thread throughout the story. As the film progresses, the Psalms David utters grow darker and darker. Whilst the final scene attempts to provide an upbeat ending, it cannot mask the frank and honest appraisal of Saul and David’s lives that the film gives over all. David may have ended up one of the biggest heroes in the bible, but this film reminds us that even those God has chosen can inflict much unnecessary pain.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Moses (1996) - Part 2 Scene Guide

Having covered part 1 of this film yesterday, I thought it would be good to cover part 2 today, particularly as part 1 ends on a cliff-hanger. There are a few parts of the story which occur in the Pentateuch / Torah more than once. Where this is the case I will give priority to the Exodus reference
Parting of the Red Sea - (Ex 14)
Hymn of Moses - (Ex 15)
Fire from Heaven - (Num 11)
Manna and Quails - (Ex 16)
Jethro Visits Moses - (Ex 18)
Israel commits to God - (Ex 19)
The Ten Commandments - (Ex 20)
Moses on Sinai - (Ex 20 & 21)
Golden Calf - (Ex 32:1-24)
Idolaters Massacred - (Ex 32:25-35)
2nd Ten Commandments - (Ex 34:1-7)
Construction of the Tabernacle - (Ex 35-40)
Priestly Blessing - (Num 6:22-27)
Miriam's Rebellion - (Num 12)
12 Spies Explore Canaan - (Num 13)
The People Rebel - (Num 14)
Death of Miriam - (Num 20:1)
Moses Strikes Rock in Anger - (Num 20:2-13)
Death of Aaron - (Num 20:22-29)
Commissioning of Joshua - (Deut 31:1-8)
Death of Moses - (Deut 32:48-52, 34:1-8)
Joshua's Speech - (Josh 1:1-8)
Epilogue - (Josh 24:25-27)
Notes
Once again, Moses sheds fresh light on passages that the viewer thinks they are familiar with, only to realise that thay are more familiar with DeMille than with scripture. One notable example in this second part of the film is the giving of the Ten Commandments. Whilst there is plenty of interpretation here, this version would appear to be closer to the text. In the Torah, the story is somewhat confusing due to Moses ascending and descending the mountain several times, yet the final verses before God starts speaking the Commandments locate Moses at the bottom of the mountain with the people ("So Moses went down to the people and told them. And God spoke all these words" [Ex 19:25-20:1]).

The second part of Moses covers a much wider volume of literature drawing from 4 books (Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua) whereas part 1 only covered the first thirteen and a half chapters of Exodus. Strangely though, compared to many of the other films about Moses, this one actually devotes a far greater percentage of it's run time to these events. DeMille's 1923 Ten Commandments only covers the period from the Passover to the Golden Calf. His remake lasted for 4 hours, but most of this time was spent fleshing out Moses's youth and his discovery of his Hebrew identity. Only the scene where Moses stares out at the Promised Land is added to the episodes after the Red Sea. Moses und Aron (1973), focussed on the tension between knowing God and communicating his will, does not really concern itself with the life of Moses per se, and both Wholly Moses and The Prince of Egypt end with the giving of the Ten Commandments, as do a host of children's cartoon portrayals. That said two other films are concerned with events after the giving of the Ten Commandments. DeBosio's Moses (1975), both in it's cinematically released 3 hour version, and the 6 hour TV series (Moses the Lawgiver) and perhaps this later film could be seen as something of a remake. The other film is the recent TV film The Ten Commandments (2006) (scene guide parts 1 and 2). What is strange is that there is so much comment on the character of Moses, and human nature in general in these four books, yet, until recently, they have been fairly poorly explored.

The scenes that the second half includes allows for a much more intimate and honest portrayal of Moses. Whilst not quite as critical of Moses' character as The Ten Commandments, it also portrays his weaknesses, in particular the incidents with Jethro (Ex 18), and the striking of the rock (Num 20). Sadly though his opponents remain as one dimensional as they are in the bible.

Moses (1996) - Part 1 Scene Guide

The Bible Collection's Moses was one of those films that really made me want to write more about films in general, and bible films in particular. The film is split into two parts, so I'll look at the first today, and the second later in the week. The scenes included in this film are as follows:
Birth of Moses - (Ex 2:1-2)
Death of the infants - (Ex 1:22)
Moses put on the Nile - (Ex 2:3-4)
Baby Moses discovered - (Ex 2:5-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episodes - Moses grows up]
Moses slays an Egyptian - (Ex 2:11-12)
Moses rescues Jethro's daughters - (Ex 2:16-20)
Moses, Zipporah and Gershom - (Ex 2:21-22)
Ramsees I Dies - (Ex 2:23)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
[Extra-Biblical Episodes]
Moses returns to Egypt - (Ex 4:18-20)
Aaron meets Moses - (Ex 4:27-28)
Moses and the elders - (Ex 4:29-31)
Moses and Pharaoh - (Ex 5:1-6)
Bricks without straw - (Ex 5:7-19)
Moses's staff and Pharaoh magicians - (Ex 7:10-13 )
Plague of Blood - (Ex 7:14-24)
Plague of Frogs - (Ex 8:1-15)
Plague of Hail - (Ex 9:13-33)
Plague of Locusts - (Ex 10:1-20)
Plague of Boils - (Ex 9:8-12)
The Passover - (Ex 12:1-28)
Death of the Firstborn - (Ex 12:29-30)
Pharaoh frees the Slaves - (Ex 12:31-32)
The Exodus - (Ex 12:33-42)
Pharaoh Changes his Mind - (Ex 14:5-12)
Notes
Although the film's narrative starts with the events at the beginning of Exodus the opening scene is actually of an older Moses. The camera circles him as an old man on his knees in prayer before going to the start of the story. It's an interesting way to start the film as there is no dialogue, internal or external commentary, or anything that links this opening shot with the start of the story. Moses, of course, has traditionally been associated with the authorship of Exodus (and of the whole five-book Torah in general), it would seem that this is the film-makers way of referring to that tradition. Whilst the text is largely devoid of the literary flourishes one would expect (at least today) from such an auto-biographical work, tradition, at least, has asserted that we hear it through Moses's lips. It is not surprising then that in the cinematic version of his story we see the events through Moses' eyes.

The film only shows six plagues (Blood, frogs, hail, locusts, boils, and death of the firstborn), and even these are out of order. Interestingly, not all of the accounts of the 10 plagues in Exodus were in the original sources. The main source for them is the 'Yahwist' source, which featured seven or eight plagues (Blood, Frogs, Flies, Livestock, Hail, Locusts, Death of Firstborn and possibly the Plague of Darkness, although some list this as originating with the 'Elohist' source). This was later enhanced by two from the 'Priestly' source (Gnats and Boils). However, there is no real correlation between this film's choice of plagues and any one particular source. The use of Ten Plagues of judgement is possibly to mirror the Ten Commandments that Moses will also bring from God. Although whereas the first group of ten gradually build towards a climax, the later Decalogue starts with the greatest commandment and lists the others as being its logical outworking.

Whilst the first part of the story is fairly conservative in its scene selection, opting to go for the most popular episodes as expressed by the wealth of previous artistic interpretations of the story, it also subverts the most well-known version of this story to audiences today, namely Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments. It does this by highlighting parts of the text that DeMille ostracizes in order to present a classically heroic Moses. So here Moses stutters (Exodus 4:10), and has Aaron do his early bidding. His pleas that God's chose another liberator are heartfelt, unlike Heston's Moses who appears to be simply being humble.

That said the film also goes beyond the text to subvert DeMille. So Moses always seems awkward and out of place in Pharaoh's palace - almost faintly ridiculous. His Hebrew ancestry, whilst unknown to Pharaoh, are known by Ramsees II amongst others - there is no great discovery. His rescue of Jethro's daughters is more due to his bluff and quick wit than his athleticism and power.

Perhaps the most significant place where Moses subverts DeMille by returning to the original text is in the parting of the Red Sea. In both of DeMille's version of this incident the parting of the seas is almost instantaneous, and dramatic. However, the text of Exodus actually states that "all that night the LORD drove the sea back" (Ex 14:21). Here, Lionel Chetwynd's teleplay works the drama in another fashion by ending the first half of the film with Moses and the Israelites still waiting God's deliverance whilst the Egyptians close in. Given that the play was originally made for TV this cliff-hanger will have sent many back to their bibles to view the story afresh for the first time, finally liberated from DeMille's showmanship.

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.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Jesus (1999) - Scene Guide

Having reviewed the Jesus mini series yesterday, I thought I would follow it up as normal with a scene guide. The gospel citations here follow the usual rules. There are actually two different version of this film in circulation. The one I am most familiar with is the International version which concludes with a scene where the modern day Jesus meets some children in Malta (I believe). The US version is the one where Mary recalls Jesus as a child resurrecting a bird, an episode not dissimilar to one from certain versions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. There are only a few differences between the two versions, and most of them relate to the incidents not found in scripture. Those changes which do relate to scriptural incidents are minor. Full details of the differences between the two versions can be found at Hollywood Jesus.
Part 1
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Mary and Martha - (Luke 10:38-42)
John the Baptist - (Mark 1:4-8)
Boy Jesus (Luke 2:41-50)
Jesus’ Baptism - (Mark 1:9-11)
Temptation - (Matt 4:1-11)
Andrew & John follow - (John 1:35-40)
Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant - (Matt 1:19-20)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Wedding at Cana - (John 2:1-12)
Catch of Fish - (Luke 5:2-11)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Death of John - (Mark 6:17-27)
[Extra-Biblical Episode ]
Woman caught in Adultery - (John 8:2-11)
Clearing the Temple - (Mark 11:15-19)

Part 2
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Various Teaching
Calling of the 12 - (Mark 3:14-19)
Calming the storm - (Matt 14:22-33)
Canaanite Woman - (Mark 7:24-30)
[Extra-biblical episode]
Lazarus Raised - (John 11:1-44)
Triumphal Entry - (Mark 11:1-11)
[Extra-biblical episode]
Last Supper - (Mark 14:12-31)
Judas’ Betrayal - (Mark 14:10-11)
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-42)
Jesus’s arrest - (Mark 14:43-50)
Peter’s Denial - (Mark 14:66-72))
Sanhedrin Trial - (Mark 14:53-64)
Pilate 1st trial - (Luke 23:1-7)
Before Herod - (Luke 23:8-12)
Pilate 2nd trial - (Luke 23:13-25)
Jesus is Whipped - (Matt 27:26)
Crucifixion and Death - (Mark 15:22-41)
Judas Hangs himself - (Matt 27:5b)
Burial - (Mark 15:42-47)
Mary M & the Empty Tomb - (John 20:1-2)
Peter & John at Tomb - (John 20:3-10)
Mary M meets Jesus - (John 20:11-16)
Thomas Doubts - (John 20:25)
Appearance to Disciples - (Luke 24:36-40)
[International ending - Extra-Biblical]
A Few Notes

This film is a prime example of the harmonising tradition in Jesus films. Rather than exclusively or primarily following a single gospel it blends all four together. Hence key incidents exclusive to John, such as the wedding at Cana, raising of Lazarus and some of the resurrection stories are included. Whilst this is not uncommon, we also see the script writer Suzette Couture pick and choose the most vivid incidents from each of the synoptic gospels. Hence Luke's version of the call of Simon Peter (where he is only convinced after a miraculous catch of fish) is included in preference to the more mundane version in Matthew and Mark. This is of course only after John the Baptist has dramatically pointed out Jesus to Andrew and John. The interaction with between Jesus and Mary and Martha is only found in Luke's gospel yet included. Similarly only Luke's gospel puts Jesus on trial in front of Herod, and only Matthew has Peter attempt to walk on water and Judas hang himself. As a result of this and my familiarity with the film I've made more effort to locate the exact story where it seems warranted.

It's also noticeable how this film opts neither for the single trip to Jerusalem we find in Mark's gospel (and the other synoptics), nor the threefold trip to Jerusalem unique to John's Gospel. Whilst it is difficult to be precise (and unclear whether this was intentional on the part of the writer) it would appear that both parts of the film start in Galilee, and end in Jerusalem. Hence at the end of part 1, Jesus visits and clears the temple, before returning at the start of part 2 to the Sea of Galilee, to pick his diciples. and meet them across the water.

The other distinctive thing about the screen play is the prominence it gives to women. Many Jesus films have taken a number of different women and boiled them down into one> Usually this is achieved by making Mary Magdalene not only the woman who witnesses Jesus's resurrection but also the woman of sinful life who anoints Jesus, and the woman caught in adultery. Jesus Christ Superstar even portrays her as mothering Jesus as well - in a manner reminiscent of the Virgin Mary.

By contrast this film gives a detailed portrait of a number of many different women around the life of Jesus, being at pains to make them distinct. So, whilst Mary Magdalene is, in keeping with the old western tradition, a reformed prostitute, it is another woman who is caught in adultery. Mary of Bethany is distinct again - shown as the woman Jesus had to leave behind to fulfil his calling. Jesus's mother also has a prominent role, and even Herodias and Salome get an above average quantity of screen time. Furthermore, there is the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman (which appears in no other Jesus film), not to mention Martha. Admittedly, the film excludes the Samaritan women, Jairus's daughter, the haemorrhaging woman, and the crippled woman who was healed on the Sabbath but I imagine screen time was a limiting factor. Nevertheless the prominence of women in this film combined with the way Jesus treats them in particular in this film, make this film particularly appealing to many women.

Finally there is the closing scene in the international version where Jesus appears as a modern man. Interestingly most British viewers I have encountered consider this scene very American, which is ironic since that is one of the few places it was not shown. There is also a difference of opinion as to whether this scene is a plus or a minus. Amongst others, I know that Mark Goodacre considers it a plus point, whereas I would strongly disagree. I'm not sure whether it's the music, or the children that I find grates. Certainly I like the idea of showing Jesus's relevance for today, but this ending just doesn't do it for me.