Dim Recollections - Moses und Aron

Over on the Bible Films Facebook page - which is where you should go for latest news, and other people's reviews about Bible Films (you don't have to "do" Facebook to read it!) - Peter Chattaway has posted news that Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet's 1973 adaptation of Moses und Aron was recently screened in New York. It's been a long time since I saw the film, but it's one of those films that has stuck with me if for no other reason than it's the only feature length film I've seen that is anything like it.

The film is an adaptation of Arnold Schönberg's unfinished opera, Moses und Aron. Two other versions of Schönberg's piece have been released in the last few years, neither of which I've managed to see, but both of which I am keen to see. If nothing else I feel they might help me get a better understanding of Schönberg's work to enable me to grapple with what Straub and Huillet are doing with the material.

In other words, then, Moses und Aron is not for the faint-hearted; I would class it as the least accessible film I have ever seen. Schönberg's opera is a complex exploration of how hearing God speak is an ineffable experience. It works on the interplay between Moses and Aaron. Moses is able to hear God's voice, but is unable to express what God has said correctly. Aaron on the other hand has the task of disseminating what Moses tells him for the sake of the masses. In the process much is lost, and essentially it's that which the libretto is trying to explore. What gets lost in translation?

Schönberg never finished the third act and so only his lyrics remain, which shows that even the great man never quite got a hold on his subject matter, which makes me feel a little better for never managing to write down my thoughts on watching the film. He also pioneered in the field of atonal music - which uses notes independently of the standard scales with a single central tone. This means that even the music to the opera is not easy to appreciate and enjoy.

Filming such material was never going to result in box office gold, but Straub and Huillet also have their own set of complex ideas that they wish to explore by adapting Schönberg's material. The majority of their work was, in fact, adapting established works. Indeed, the only other piece of theirs I have seen is Toute révolution est un coup de dés (Every Revolution Is a Throw of the Dice - 1977) was an adaptation of Stéphane Mallarmé's poem. I'm sure that in this day and age there are several others available to watch online, and so I should really watch more. Not to mention my need to read the two booksI have about their work.

Their style is so cinematically austere, that it makes your standard Dogme film look like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. They use long, long shots, with very little movement. The image that is most prominent in my mind of this film is such a shot of the back of Moses head. There's also a lack of dramatic action. The focus of the film is the relationship between Moses and his brother, but there are occasional scenes with the rest of the Israelites (the chorus). But they remain stationary in the kind of rigid formation you expect from watching a choir perform live, rather than how you would expect a crowd to act - even in an opera.

The austerity has a point however: it's pushing questions about cinema's form to an extreme. As David Thomson puts it in his essay on Straub ¹.

What we think of as story is invariably the effect of a chosen way of filming. The medium is intensely decision based, and thus there has always been an abiding formal element to it.

...There is a further, inevitable kind of order in the sequence of shots within a film. And although Straub's work has alarmed audiences and been enjoyed by relatively few, it is built upon the assertion that in cinema we respond to those sequences; that composition; light, movement, and sound play upon our thoughts and feelings."

I'm not sure I fully understand that, but it's the most succinctly clear summary I have to hand!

The final act is just read out - no music exists and so in some ways the final act is less accessible for more conservative opera fans, although conversely it does mean that the film becomes a little less accessible for the average film-goer.

In Straub and Huillet's hands the opera also explores the question of word vs image, which is very in-keeping with the second commandment's ban on graven images, often understood as a ban on using images to gain a greater intellectual or spiritual understanding of God.

So that's about it really, like I said, dim recollections. There are more perceptive comments from Richard Brody at the New Yorker.

1 - David Thomson, "The New Biographical Dictionary of Film", LONDON (Little Brown), 2002, Fourth Edition, p.843.

New Moses und Aron DVD

I hadn't realised until just now that a new DVD of Schöenberg's "Moses und Aron" was released at the end of the summer last year. From looking at the Amazon blurb, it appears to be a filming of the live opera version from what I can make out, but I'm not sure whether it has audience applause or not. It was the Ruhrtriennale 2009 production that was filmed.

There is an earlier live recording of the opera but I can't quite work out from the costuming how dramatic the production is. This newer 2010 version looks to have more dramatic movement.

Hopefully this new version will be a little easier to watch than Straub and Hulliet's version. That version, which is more of a film in its own right, is a fine demonstration of ultra-formalism, which certainly has its own strengths, particularly given the themes of the opera, but it's also very though to sit through. Personally I'd be interested in seeing a version that could help me wrap my head around what Schöenberg is trying to say, which would help me understand the Straub and Hulliet film a little more.

Warner Bros. to Make Moses

Over at Arts and Faith, Peter Chattaway has linked to news from NYmag.com about two new Moses films in production by major studios. I reported on Fox's plans for a 300-style Moses film last year, and the NYmag piece doesn't really add much to what was known then.

However, the Warner Bros. project, is something that neither Peter nor I had heard of before, and seems to have a reasonably strong team behind it. Dan Lin (The Departed) and Matti Leshem are going to be producing the movie and British screenwriter Stuart Hazeldine and US writer Michael Green (Heroes) are said to be supplying the script any minute now.

There are a few more articles on this story available via this IMDb page, but I doubt any of them beat NYmag's headline. First-class pun-ditry.

Comparison: Bricks Without Straw

Time for another Moses comparison. This week it's the scene(s) where the Hebrews are forced to provide their own straw for their bricks. It's a little more complex here than previous comparisons of Moses films. Anyway here are the films I looked at this week:

The Ten Commandments (1956)
Ten Commandments (1956) 50th Anniversary Collection – Region 2
Disc 2, Chapters 2 to 3 - 0:05:54 to 0:08:53 [2:59 minutes]
Moses played by Charlton Heston
DeMille and co. do a good job of tying Moses' trick with his staff into the punishment meted out on the Hebrews. When asked how they will manage under the new conditions, Pharaoh suggests Moses' stick might do it for them. Moses and Aaron return to the Hebrews who seemingly were expecting an instant release and when they discover that Moses has failed they quickly turn against him. A shorter clip could be made stopping at around 8:18 minutes.

Moses the Lawgiver (1975)
Network/Granada Ventures – Region 2
Disc 1, episode 2, chapter 9 – 39:46 to 41:14 [1:28 minutes]
Moses played by Burt Lancaster
This production handles this scene rather unusually. Having been summoned back to Egypt, Moses has a one to one conversation with Pharaoh, but no specific request is made. Then we are shown Aaron on his own requesting the three days in the desert. It ends with a task master telling him to relay a message. There's a cut and we see bewildered Hebrews finding out that no straw will be available to them now. Joshua objects the most forcefully and is punished and, like the 1956 film the episode ends in chaos.

The Ten Commandments (1994)
Goodtimes; Nine Film Set – Region 2
Chapter 6 - 29:26 to 31:26 [2:00 minutes]
Moses voiced by Joel Briel
This is a fairly low quality animated film, complete with a cheeky talking bird and an uber-brat of a Pharaoh's son. It doesn't mention the withdrawing of straw provision, opting instead for having Pharaoh tell Moses they have to double the amount of bricks which they must produce.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Moses (1996)
Bible Society; Nine Film Set – Region 2
Disc 1, title 3, chapter 2 - 13:38 to 14:28 [0:50 minutes]
Moses voiced by Martin Jarvis
Rather unfortunately, the events here fall across a scene break. Aaron performs the staff to snake trick, but Pharaoh is somewhat unimpressed. A cut follows and we overhear two Hebrews complaining about having to make bricks without straw and voicing their preference for leadership rather than tricks. The camera pans beyond them to a boat out on the Nile which shortly afterwards Moses will be turning to blood.

Moses (1996)
Time Life Box Set – Region 2
Part 1, chapter 5 - 47:35 to 56:05 [8:30 minutes]
Moses played by Sir Ben Kingsley
This is the only portrayal to show this incident before Moses turns his staff into a snake in front of Pharaoh, despite the fact that this is the biblical order. It's also a fairly lengthy clip. Whilst a shorter clip could be used that ends at 51:35, what follows is interesting enough to perhaps warrant inclusion. The Israelites fail to meet their target and so their Hebrew overseer is whipped, seeking out Moses to confront him later on.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Dreamworks 2006 Single Disc version – Region 2
Chapter 15 - 41:41 to 45:45 [4:04 minutes]
Moses voiced by Val Kilmer
Like the animated Ten Commandments this film omits any mention of the fact that the Hebrews now have to source their own straw, opting instead to have Pharaoh order the Hebrews to double their quotient. It's because of this that I've included a couple of other animated versions in this comparison of the Moses story as one of our congregations is aimed at (young) children and adults.

Ten Commandments (2006)
Disc 1; 42:42 to 51:22 [8:40 minutes]
Moses played by Dougray Scott
This is one of this film's better moments. Again it's fairly long, but it shows not only the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh, but also the response of the people, with the detail about the bricks without straw only being released before the end of the scene. Moses borther acts as a go beyween and chastises Moses for getting Pharaoh's back up.

Ten Commandments (2007)
32:40 to 33:36 [0:54 minutes]
Moses voiced by Christian Slater
I was one of the few critics that was fairly forgiving about this film when it was released, but it looks very dated today - the trees don't move in the air, nor does the characters hair (which people pointed out at the time) and the characters movement is stilted. It's not a bad portrayal of this scene however. Pharaoh spells it what he will do and then we cut to the Hebrews who we see suffering under the new restrictions. This is followed by a contingent of disgruntled Israelites trying to get Moses to admit he made a mistake to Pharaoh.

Comparison: The Burning Bush

As I mentioned last week my church is looking at Exodus at the moment, and having been tasked with finding some suitable video clips to portray Moses' early life for last Sunday's meeting, I've now been asked to hunt out the best portrayals of the Burning Bush episode for this coming week.

As with last week, I'm going to exclude the more obscure films such as Demille's 1923 The Ten Commandments (as it omits this episode anyway) and Moses und Aron as they are a bit too complex. I am however going to include DeMille's 1956 version of these events as his depiction is significantly shorter than his portrayal of Moses' early life, which lasts for roughly half the film.

The Ten Commandments (1956)
Ten Commandments (1956) 50th Anniversary Collection – Region 2
Disc 1, Chapter 29 - 2:05:00 to 2:07:50 [2:50 minutes]
Moses played by Charlton Heston
Given the length of the overall movie it's strange that this pivotal scene is so short. The special effects here are weaker than I remembered them and Moses is given no signs with which to convince the Israelites of his encounter with God. The identity of the voice of God was hushed up at the time and, no doubt due to DeMille's death shortly after, it's never been something that has been cleared up entirely satisfactorily to my mind. Strangely, given the importance of head covering in Judaism, Moses begins this incident with his head covered up, but by the end of it his head is uncovered. His hair hair has not only become more grey, but it has also changed it's style, marking his transition from desert shepherd to God's chosen leader.

Moses the Lawgiver (1975)
Network/Granada Ventures – Region 2
Disc 1, episode 2, chapter 2 – 9:45 to 14:45 [5 minutes]
Moses played by Burt Lancaster
This production consistently seeks to demythologise the events which is depicting, and this scene is no exception. This time there is no secret about the identity of the actor who provides God's voice: it is Lancaster himself. Whilst this can be explained as simply the voice we are most likely to hear God speak with (DeMille used Heston's voice in such a manner in the latter part of his film) it also leaves open the possibility that Moses is simply imagining the encounter. In a similar fashion, the two signs that God gives Moses are shot using an unusual effect which could be read as a hallucination, though it also does not rule out a more traditional interpretation. The two things that are unexplained are 1 - why the bush and the surrounding fires all go out at once, and 2 - why this encounter changes Moses to the extent that it does.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Moses (1996)
Bible Society; Nine Film Set – Region 2
Disc 1, title 3, chapter 2 - 7:18 to 9:46 [2:28 minutes]
Moses voiced by Martin Jarvis
For some reason the Testament interpretation of these events has already given Moses white hair (tradition does suggest he was 80 by this point) that stretches down his back, making Moses look rather odd. God is again voiced by the actor playing Moses, although here it seems less sceptical. The signs are mentioned but not shown, and everything is over rather quickly.

Moses (1996)
Time Life Box Set – Region 2
Part 1, chapter 3 - 29:10 to 34:20 [5:10 minutes]
Moses played by Sir Ben Kingsley
This is one of the better portrayals. Ben Kingsley's acting is good here, even stuttering as he tries to convince God that he is not a good public speaker. It also uses some early CGI to turn the snake into a stick, which holds up reasonably well fourteen years later.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Dreamworks 2006 Single Disc version – Region 2
Chapter 15 - 41:41 to 45:45 [4:04 minutes]
Moses voiced by Val Kilmer
This quite a creative portrayal of Moses first encounter with God. Firstly it uses two actors for the voice of God, the more dominant is male, but a woman's voice also whispers the words along at the same time, and with greater sustain. We also hear echoes of the past and the future as the implications of this moment strike Moses. Moses perhaps pushes things further here than in the other films (in line with the text) resulting in God's final outburst being an angry sounding one. The one false note is when God tells Moses he will smite Egypt only for the background music to swell up into an uplifting crescendo.

Ten Commandments (2006)
Disc 1; 30:00 to 31:50 [1:50 minutes]
Moses played by Dougray Scott
This might be one of the clips I use, whilst I dislike Moses' hair at this point, it is quite short, and has the most convincing effects. Scott argues with God quite well, again stuttering like Kingsley in the earlier mini-series. The scene is preceded by Moses disobeying his father-in-law's command to pay no attention to the holy mountain.

Comparison: Moses' Early Life

Back in 2008 my church did a series on the Ten Commandments, and I wrote a post comparing how different films portrayed the giving of the Decalogue. Now we're returning to Exodus to take a broader look at it. We're starting this Sunday with Moses' early life, and I've been tasked to find a suitable clip.

Because it's a young congregation (18-30s plus their kids), I don't think they will get much out of either of DeMille's versions of the story, though, in any case, the 1923 film omits the early life of Moses and the 1956 version takes somewhere in the region of 2 hours to cover it. I'm also going to exclude some of the less accessible/popular films such as Moses und Aron. I'm particularly interested in the biblical events here, so I won't offer much comment on the additional material that is added to what we find in Exodus 2:1-15.

What strikes me about watching these four takes together is that they have a number of similarities in plot. Firstly there is no mention of the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah. Secondly, in contrast to The Ten Commandment all of these films suggest that the children are drowned in the river, rather than killed by swords, although there is some ambiguity on that point. Thirdly all of them show Moses being sailed down the river, whereas to me, at least, the implication of the passage seems to be that Moses mother Jochebed intends to hide him their until the danger passes. Floating a baby in simply a basket is as almost likely to end in death as leaving him for the soldiers. The reeds would allow his cries to be drowned out by the roar of the river, but also prevent his basket from sailing out into the river. Hence why Miriam hangs around to check everything is OK. Finally, none of these films show Moses having an altercation with the Israelite who witnessed Moses killing the Egyptian.

So that's the things they have in common, what about the things that are distinct to each film?

Moses the Lawgiver (1975)
Network/Granada Ventures – Region 2
Disc 1, title 1 – 0:00 to ~40:00 [~40 minutes]
Moses played by Burt Lancaster
When I first saw this 8 or so years ago I was shocked by the brutality of Moses killing the Egyptian. It doesn't seem quite as harsh now. Like many of these films several others witness the murder. There's narration here which mixes the Bible with other material, and by pronouncing it in an authoritative tone must have given the impression to those not in the know, that some of it is not from the Bible. There's a nice play on the dual meaning of Moses' name. The princess gives it to him, and explains its meaning, but as Miriam is present she explains what it means in Hebrew as well.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Moses (1996)
Bible Society; Nine Film Set – Region 2
Disc 1, title 3 - 04:10 to 06:15 [2:05 minutes]
Moses voiced by Martin Jarvis
Testament starts during the aftermath of Moses' murder of the Egyptian. Pharaoh's soldiers swarm through the Israelite settlement whilst Aaron persuades him to flee. This leads to a meeting with Jethro (the role of his daughters is passed over) and thus Moses tells his future father-in-law his story. It's a very effective sequence, largely shot in silhouette against a blood red sky. Despite this it's fairly menacing for kids, even though the murder scene is shown as shadows on a wall. The babies are thrown into the Nile in sacks emphasising the process of dehumanisation that may have occurred in the minds of the soldiers carrying out Pharaoh's grim command.

Moses (1996)
Time Life Box Set – Region 2
Part 1; 0:00 – 14:15 [14:15 minutes]
Moses played by Sir Ben Kingsley
This is the oldest of the Moses babies, it's complete with two bottom teeth. This section of the film is notable for depicting Moses very weakly. In stark contrast to The Ten Commandments Moses is his "brother's" inferior. Not only does he stammer, but he's clumsy and provides an easily surpassed gift for Pharaoh's birthday. The murder scene, whilst not quite as visceral as Master Lancaster's, is appropriately brutal.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Dreamworks 2006 Single Disc version – Region 2
3:04 to 7:54; 23:00 to 25:00; 28:03 to 31:54
Moses voiced by Val Kilmer
The murder of the Israelite children and Moses' narrow escape form the opening of the story which intertwines two songs, "Deliver Us" and "River Lullaby", which ends passing upwards from Pharaoh's palace, through the Israelites still slaving away, to a shot of a grand monument to Pharaoh. But then it zooms beyond it to focus on a structure far away which, given the accompanying lyrics, suggests the promised land.

What's interesting about this scene is that it is animated again, later on in the film. Moses, have discovered his true identity falls asleep and has a dream in style of hieroglyphics of his salvation (pictured above). It's perhaps the movie's most acclaimed sequence, and rightly so.

The slaying of the Egyptian scene is however a little dishonest. Rather than playing out the character arc we find in the Bible, (Moses' transition from a murderer to the leader of God's people) the incident is portrayed as an accident. The result of hot-headed anger to be sure, but there's no suggestion that Moses intended to kill the Egyptian.

Ten Commmandments (2006)
Disc 1; 1:47 – 21:00 [19:13 minutes]
Moses played by Dougray Scott
There's an interesting addition to this film's portrayal of these events. Pharaoh's motivation for killing the Israelite baby boys comes from a prophecy that one of them will overthrow him. This seems to mirror Herod's motives in Matthew's gospel, which is interesting as Matthew's inclusion of this story in the first place seems intended to deliberately mirror the events around Moses' birth in the text of Exodus.

Most of these films show Moses discovering his Hebrew ancestry once he is an adult, but here he finds out when he is approaching his teens. Like The Prince of Egypt the programme seeks to mitigate Moses' actions by showing them as a response to attempted rape. There's also a suggestion that killing the Egyptian was an unintended consequence.

========

In the end we used the opening clip from The Prince of Egypt for our children and adults congregation, and the Testament clip for our evening congregation. This week we're looking at the burning bush and so I'll be doing a similar comparison on that sequence at some point soon.

Testament: Moses

It took Cecil B DeMille nearly four hours to tell his version of the Moses story - even longer if you count the ten minute theatrical trailer. So it's interesting to see someone else tell the story in just half an hour. Whilst this film ends a good deal of time before the giving of the Ten Commandments, it still manages to tell the story of the first fifteen chapters of Exodus very effectively in such a short time frame. Of course elements are missed out. Like many Moses films not all of the ten plagues are shown, and other common omissions, such as God trying to kill Moses on the road back to Egypt, are also excluded. Running time is also cut back by telling the story of Moses' birth and childhood in a flashback along with an account of Moses murdering an Egyptian. The film opens with Aaron aiding Moses' escape from Egyptian soldiers.

Like most of the Testament series the animation uses a more expressive style, marking it as much for adults as for children. Here the characters all have a lithe, elongated shape which lends them a sense of elegance - fitting for what is essentially a battle of wills between a Pharaoh, a former prince and the sovereign God. The animators also use their medium to great effect. Aside from the flashback, set against a deep red sky, there is also a literally red Red Sea. There's also a notable moment when the tenth plague is shot from the point of view of the Angel of Death, and the closing zoom out shot is cleverly executed.

Two years after this film the more well known animated version of this film hit the silver screen. The Prince of Egypt had a much larger budget, but seems to have drawn at least some inspiration from the earlier film. Aside from the expressive use of animation, the opening scenes emphasising the rivalry between Moses and the Pharaoh, in this case Menephtah (son of Ramsees II). They even compete in chariot races.

But this is one of the few Moses films to show Aaron speaking for Moses, even if Moses does take over in the end. It also uses the correct initial request of Moses and Aaron - to be allowed to go to worship in the desert. Such fidelity to the original text is matched by the subtle ways the film introduces elements of historical context into the background. For example, the blooding of the Nile takes place during a religious festival celebrating the God of the Nile, and there's also a mention of a frog god who is quite literally toppled by a plague of his amphibian minions. The script also reminds us that Pharaoh himself was viewed as a god, and that ultimately it is he, rather than the idols that adorn his palace, which is Yahweh's primary target.

Overall, this is one of the strongest entries in the Testament series, with fine voice work from Martin Jarvis as Moses and Simon Callow as Menephtah, but it's the vivid illustration which really catches the eye and gives real significance and texture to this most critical of Old Testament stories.

=======================

This is one of a series of reviews of the films from the series Testament: The Bible in Animation. The entire nine-film series has recently been re-released on DVD by the Bible Society.

Spartacus, Jesus and Moses

I finally got to see Spartacus on the big screen on Friday, which was pretty incredible. Despite being a big fan of the epic films of the 50s and 60s, this was the first time I had ever seen one on the big screen, and what an experience. It was also only the second time I'd seen the film and I'd forgotten so much of it in the meantime, particularly the extent to which Jean Simmons is in the film and Peter Ustinov's hilarious turn as Batiatus. Incidentally, I got a bit of an epic-movie-geek kick out of the scenes between Ustinov and Charles Laughton because they both played Nero in early-Christian Roman epics, Ustinov in 1951's Quo Vadis and Laughton in The Sign of the Cross (1932).

My two favourite scenes were the build up to the final battle scene - the huge Roman army gradually making its way towards the slaves looked very impressive on the big screen - and the scene with Kirk Douglas and Woody Strode waiting to go into the ring together. Most directors would have gone for the action shot here, shooting the first gladiatorial contest with, perhaps, just an occasional glance at those waiting to go out next. But Kubrick reverses this. He stays with the two men who will go out next allowing us only a very occasional glance at the two other men. The tension and build up here is wonderful, made all the more claustrophobic by the two men being penned in to a tiny shed.

The film is well known, of course, for bookending the story with references to Jesus. The opening monologue notes that this is the century before Jesus, and that it would be his teaching that set the wheels in motion for the abolition of slavery. Of course sadly still exists in the world today, but there's much in this film's subtext that suggests it's much about the founding and development of America as it is about 1st century BC Italy. Then, of course, the film closes with the crucifixion of the heroic, freedom-preaching, rebel leader, which whilst based in real historical events is, nevertheless, an allusion to Jesus as well. It does also shed some light on the practice of crucifixion, most notably the scene were Douglas and Tony Curtis fight to try and kill each other because they would prefer their friend to die by their sword than undergo crucifixion. The fact that they didn't think to stab each other simultaneously is one of the film's few weaknesses however.

Having said all that, I think the film is much more of a Moses film than a Jesus film. For most of the film we are with these travelling, newly-freed slaves, as they seek to organise themselves and escape to permanent freedom. In contrast to the real story, Kubrick has Spartacus march is army down to the sea, and then to get them to march back again. Was this just so he could show the freed slaves trapped by the sea against an advancing army wanting to imprison them once again?

Spartacus also does what The Ten Commandments (1956) rarely does; give an idea of what life on the road might look like for such a large community. DeMille does, of course, show the ordinary people as they prepare to leave their homes in a magnificent sequence, but once the new nation is in motion the details are rather brushed over. Spartacus deals with the need to train his new army, plan a route and make allegiances, but it also shows the people relaxing and eating, caring for the vulnerable and progressing through the seasons. I vaguely remember there being a couple of other points I wanted to make about this as well, but, for the moment, they seem to have escaped me.

=====

Incidentally, the 2010 Starz mini-series Spartacus: Blood and Sand premières in the UK on Bravo on May 25th. From the clips on the Bravo website it looks like the new series is influenced much more by Gladiator and Rome than the original, but given that Gladiator was itself heavily influenced by the Kubrick film I imagine that there will be something or other to link it with the original. There was an interview with one of the show stars, John Hannah, in Monday's Guardian.

National Geographic's Documentary Series on the Plagues and Jesus

I cam across news of this one thanks to an article in the Daily Telegraph called "Biblical Plagues Really Happened". It turns outs this new "evidence" was based on a National Geographic's Documentary Series on the Biblical Plagues which is airing this Easter. Ican't quite work out from National Geographic's web site how many episodes there are to this series, or how many of them have aired already. There are three Blog posts entitled Biblical Plagues Part 1: Tales of Terror, Biblical Plagues Part 2: The River of Blood and Biblical Plagues Part 3: Science Behind the Plagues, all of which end by saying "Don't miss Biblical Plagues: The First Curses and The Final Torments, this Monday starting at 9P et/pt!" but when you click on them they suggest the programmes run one after another on Sunday starting at 11A(M?).

It appears though that there's very little new in this documentary. I first came across the idea of the plagues being some sort of chain reaction over ten years ago. There might be some new information in this (perhaps that they were triggered by a sudden prolonged dry spell) but the core of the theory (including the possibility that a volcano was responsible, go a long way back.

Personally, while I used to be attracted to such theories, I find them a little too neat these days. It seems reasonable to me that a series of events may have lain behind the Exodus, but whther there were exactly ten plagues which occurred exactly as the final text of Exodus records seems a little unlikely / unimportant to me, particularly given the different sources behind the plagues seem to recall fewer in each instance (as far as I recall).There are also a number of other National Geographic documentaries showing through April from their "Mysteries of the Bible" series, including The Birth of Jesus, Jesus the Man, Jesus: the Healer and Jesus the Preacher which all air on Good Friday (2nd April), and one on Revelation that airs on Easter Monday (5th). Parts of these seem to be available to view online (even in the UK) though most of them seem to be repeats.

The Bible: A History, Part 3

Having previously dispatched Creation and Abraham, Channel 4's The Bible: A History finally arrived at The Ten Commandments on Sunday. Tory MP Anne Widdecombe was hosting this particular instalment - a call to return to the values of the Ten Commandments in our society today.

Widdecombe's always been a quirky character. During the last Tory government she was unpopular for being something of a battleaxe and slated for her bad dress sense and terrible hair. Whilst I begrudged her politics I secretly admired the way she didn't seem to care too much about how she looked. In honesty, she just looked like a typical woman of her age, but as was the case with Susan Boyle, to appear "normal" in front of the TV cameras is apparently shocking.

Anyway she held onto her seat and served for a while in the Shadow Cabinet before retiring to the backbenches. As the Labour government's popularity started to wane, her popularity has seemed to grow a little (albeit with a new hairstyle), and I was beginning to admire her, not least because, much as I disagree with many of her views, she practises what she preaches and seems to have integrity. It was no surprise that she was one of the few politicians to come up smelling of roses in the recent expenses scandal. Her Christianity has always been important too her and has seemingly shaped her views.

The programme started with an overview of the Moses story, featuring some choice clips from DeMille's 1956 film. This was intercut with various commandments flashing up on screen and Widdecombe bemoaning how the Decalogue has slipped out of fashion in the last few years.

Next up was an interview with Exeter University's Francesca Stavrakopoulou. She presented ideas such as the non-existence of Moses, the exaggerated numbers of Israelites in the Bible, and that the Torah may not have been written by Moses, but it was all disappointingly brief. Stavrakopoulou hadn't even had the chance to utter the words "documentary hypothesis" before Widdecombe dismissed her theories, brushing aside her arguments in manner that suggested she wasn't going to listen to a word of it.

Widdecombe was similarly brusque with atheists Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. The segment was introduced by footage from their recent Oxford debate, but quickly moved on to their one-to-one conversations afterwards. It's difficult to see what the programme makers were trying to do with this section. The major part of the Hitchens interview was taken from the end of their conversation, as he was quite literally walking out. Walking out rarely makes anyone look good, but including it and very little else it also made Widdecombe look bad. Was this the only part of the interview where she held her own even remotely?

Fry was a slightly different matter. Widdecombe was never going to fair well against a national treasure such as Fry, but his familiar affability was largely absent. There was something distinctly odd about seeing the usually mild mannered Fry describing the law of Moses as "hysterical rantings" in a fashion that could be described as as both something of a rant and somewhat hysterical.

But that said, Fry raised the better points. Yes, "Thou shalt not kill" is laudable, but the Ten Commandments are a mixed bunch. Widdecombe seemed to be pushing for them to be enshrined in law, but never acknowledged the potential difficulties this might involve. For example, how could "do not covet" be policed? And does Widdecombe really want a society where it is against the law to worship any God but the God of Christians and Jews? That is far more extreme than I could have imagined. Is this what she actually thinks or has she just not thought it all through?

Interspersed with all this was some interesting background information regarding Alfred the Great basing the first English law on the commandments, and a 17th century Puritan revival in Dorchester, but again these segments seemed a little odd. I enjoyed hearing about Alfred but couldn't help wondering why the academic they wheeled out to discuss a fairly insignificant point was given quite so much time. And the Puritan revival story made me wonder again what, exactly it was that Widdecombe is hoping for. A return to Puritanism?

If she's to get her wish then she is going to have to become a lot more persuasive than she was in this outing. I couldn't help but be reminded of a criticism levelled at another middle-aged woman similarly devoted to the Commandments from DeMille's 1923 version of The Ten Commandments. "You're holding a cross in your hand but you're using it like a whip."


Lastly, for those interested, it would appear that Clayboy's Doug Chaplain broadly shares my opinion on this programme.

Alex von Tunzelmann on Prince of Egypt and Greatest Story Ever Told

I've mentioned before Alex von Tunzelmann's hugely enjoyable Guardian series Reel History. (In fact, I may as well give it its own label). Well, as with last Christmas she celebrated the festive season by review two Bible films - The Prince of Egypt and The Greatest Story Ever Told.

She's a bigger fan of Prince of Egypt (Entertainment grade: A– to Greatest Story's E), but ranks the Jesus epic higher in terms of it's history (C as compared to the Moses film's D). As ever they are written in style that manages to be light-hearted, perceptive, history geeky and enjoyable all in one go. Take for example her shrewd take on the depiciton of Mircales in Greatest Story:

Lazarus is raised from the dead in long shot, so you can't really see what's going on. The feeding of the 5,000 and turning water into wine are mentioned, but not shown. "The next thing we know, they'll be calling him the Messiah," complains a Jewish leader. "And that's not all." "What else?" asks Pontius Pilate. "He walked on water." "Get out!" Historically speaking, this is fine: there's no independent evidence for any of the miracles. Cinematically, it's more of a problem. If the director was concerned about excluding the sceptical audience, you've got to wonder why he picked this subject. Because, if you don't go in for God, this is just three hours of the musings of a first-century Middle Eastern hippie. A few whizz-bang moments would really have livened things up.

These are two films which have been criminally under-discussed by this blog. The Prince of Egypt didn't even have it's own label until just now. The Greatest Story Ever Told does, but there's precious little there except my podcast review.

Fox to Make 300-Style Moses Movie

Both Empire and Variety are reporting that Fox are planning to make a new film about Moses in the style of 2007's 300. The new film will be produced by Peter Chernin and Dylan Clark from Adam Cooper and Bill Collage's script. There's no definite news on who the director will be but the current favourite is Timur Bekmambetov who is working on a similarly styled film version of "Moby Dick".

Here's a little bit more from Variety:

20th Century Fox has made a preemptive acquisition of a pitch to tell the story of Moses in "300" style. The tale will start with his near death as an infant to his adoption into the Egyptian royal family, his defiance of the Pharoah and deliverance of the Hebrews from enslavement.

[snip]

The Moses story will be told using the same green screen strategy as "300," so it will feel more like that pic or "Braveheart" than "The Ten Commandments,” the 1956 Cecil B. DeMille film.

The popular mythical and magical elements inherent in the Book of Exodus will be there--including the plagues visited upon Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea--but the Cooper & Collage version will also include new elements of Moses’ life that the writers culled from Rabbinical Midrash and other historical sources.

That last line is imilar to the kind of thing Cecil B. DeMille said about his second version of The Ten Commandments. In reality, though, his film contained relatively little midrashic material and mainly used modern novelisations of the Moses story.

I'm not sure I'm hugely optimistic about this film. Whilst I appreciated the style of Sin City and 300, I also found both films to be depressingly misogynistic. I'm not sure I'm too keen for a hyper-violent misogynistic take on a patriarchal story, even if it also looks fantastic. But who knows, perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised.

La Vie de Moïse & The Life of Moses

La Vie de Moïse, Pathé, France, 1905.
Interspersed with
The Life of Moses, J. Stuart Blackton, Vitagraph, US, 1909-10, 13 mins.
Perhaps the most unusual story behind the films being shown at last month's Ancient World in Silent Cinema event was these two films, which had been mixed together as if to form one film. The films on display at the event were all taken from one particular collection (the name of which I somehow failed to write down) which was apparently brought together by a teacher in a seminary in Switzerland. Those using Bible films to teach the Bible today can see the idea goes back a long way. Anyway, it appears that the original collector spliced these incidents together from two rather incomplete films, to give a fairly full account of Moses's life. I've listed the events below first with those episodes taken from the 1905 French film in the lighter text, and those from Blackton's 1909-10 US film in the darker text. I've also included biblical references.

Baby Moses on the Nile - (Ex 2:1-9)
Israelite Slaves - (Ex 1:11-14)
Moses kills an Egyptian - (Ex 2:11-14)
Moses flees - (Ex 2:15)
Moses meets Jethro & his Daughters - (Ex 2:16-22)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Return to Egypt - (Ex 4:18-23; 27-31)
Before Pharaoh - (Ex 12:31-42)
Parting of the Red Sea - (Ex 14)
Manna from Heaven - (Ex 16)
Water from the Rock - (Ex 17:1-7)
Giving of the Ten Commandments - (Ex 20)
Radiant Face of Moses - (Ex 34:29-35)

Unfortunately, writing these films up has taken me longer than I anticipated (I still blame East Midlands trains), and so the details of these two films are beginning to fail me, but here are a few observations based on what I wrote at the time and the odd memory that is yet to desert me.

When Moses is portrayed as a young man his complexion is surprisingly dark. There's little attempt to fill in his backstory - as opposed to the two or so hour DeMille devoted to this part of Moses' life not covered by the Hebrew Bible - we see some Israelite slaves in the pits making bricks, and of the three silent Moses films this is the one that goes into the most detail with different shots detailing different steps in the process. It's an almost documentary-esque sequence which we snap out of once Moses enters the frame. Two Israelites have been having a heated discussion when an Egyptian attempts to restore order. Moses kills the Egyptian but rather than thanking him, the two Israelites continue their quarrel pausing only to tell others what Moses has done.

Moses fears the worst and not giving Pharaoh a chance to hear of it, he goes to the house of Miriam and Aaron and flees. Moses is clearly already familiar with the two of them, and they help him in his flight. Moses arrives in Midian in time to save Jethro's daughters, and then encounters the burning bush in the next scene. What's interesting about the sequence of events presented here is how closely it corresponds to the biblical account. The bulrushes scene is obviously from a different film from the rest of the Exodus 2 material, but it sticks fairly closely to the events as they are presented with little embellishment.

Special effects were still fairly basic in this period, but it's interesting to see how quickly they develop. Some of the early Pathé films really did make the most of the medium here - consider, for instance, the walking on water and ascension scenes from Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. The only episode here to appear in both films is the burning bush and we see two contrasting special effect techniques. The later film here is shown first. The bush seems to have been actually set on fire, but before the scene ends the fire has gone out. The other scene, shot perhaps 5 years earlier in 1905 uses a less realistic technique - air blown streamers flying up from the vent they are ties to in the floor. The streamers technique feels more primitive, much more the kind of thing one would expect to see in a play in the theatre (at least before pyrotechnics were invented). It's quite a development in five years, though viewing it over a century later the streamers do give it an otherworldly feel that the realism of the Blackton film perhaps lacks.

The plagues are largely omitted: there's two brief scenes back in Egypt (from the US film) before we return to the earlier movie to witness the parting of the Red Sea. Given this is such an early film, it's very cleverly done (although it emphasises just how impressive DeMille's efforts were less than 20 years later). My memory is a little sketchy at this point so perhaps anyone else who saw this film could confirm or deny what follows. There's a mid shot of Moses and some Hebrews, with some "sea" in the foreground. Moses prays/ commands and this water seems to move and drain away (it's perhaps shot on an actual beach as a wave goes out. There's then a cut to a body of water which jostles about and retreats. This looks like it could have been something shot in reverse.

Special effects abound in the next scene as we see manna fall from heaven like snowflakes, followed swiftly by Moses striking a rock to bring forth water. At a guess I'd say this was the same set as the earlier burning bush scene, certainly the low-ish camera angles and the backdrop are very similar.

The last scene, again from the earlier film, is of the giving of the Ten Commandments. Moses is met on Mount Sinai by some angels who give him the stone tablets. By this stage Moses's hair has turned white and he has a halo. Once he descends a little the halo is replaced by two rays from his head after Exodus 34:29-35. It's an interesting halfway house between the "horned" face of Jerome's Vulgate translation, and the now more widely accepted "radiant" face. The horned Moses, as portrayed in Michaelangelo's famous sculpture above, was usually thought to have two horns, and here he is given two rays that come out of his head initially as if they were horns.

The BFI database doesn't include a synopsis for this film, but does list some alternative titles, one of which is Moses and the Exodus from Egypt for which Campbell and Pitts give the following summary:

Moses and the Exodus from Egypt
1907, France, Pathé, 478 feet B/W
Another short film in Pathé's series of Biblical movies, this outing was perhaps the first flicker to tell the story of Moses. Included in this lost silent were the scenes of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and the falling of the manna from heaven.

The later film actually appears to be a collection of shorter films released individually between 1909 and 1910. Again the BFI offers few details. Whilst they list each entry separately, the only details are the names of the company (Vitagraph) and director (J. Stuart Blackton). It lists the following four episodes:

I. PERSECUTION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BY THE EGYPTIANS
II. FORTY YEARS IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN
III. PLAGUES OF EGYPT AND THE DELIVERANCE OF THE HEBREWS
IV. THE VICTORY OF ISRAEL

Campbell and Pitts give this a much more significant write up, naming five episodes and giving release dates. The titles match, and the final episode is called The Promised Land

THE LIFE OF MOSES
1909-1910, Vitagraph, 5 reels, B/W.
Director: J. Stuart Blackton
Screenplay: Rev. Madison C. Peters
CAST: William Humphrey, Charles Kent, Julia Arthur, Earle Williams, Edith Story.
Vitagraph released THE LIFE OF MOSES in five parts beginning December 11, 1909 and culminating February 19, 1910. The whole film told the story of Moses and how he led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
The portions of the film and their release dates are:
Part One: "The Life of Moses" (December 11, 1909).
Part Two: "Forty Years in the Land of Midian" (December 31, 1909).
Part Three: "Plagues of Egypt and the Deliverance of the Hebrews" (February 5, 1910).
Part Four: "The Victory of Israel" (February 12, 1910)
Part Five: "The Promised Land" (February 19, 1910)
The first of a supposed series of Biblical pictures from Vitagraph, THE LIFE OF MOSES
Showed such happenings as the pillar of fire, the parting of the Red Sea and the giving of The Ten Commandments. The Moving Picture World called it "a picture that is deserving of the greatest praise and commendations as a whole"

Incidentally, J. Stuart Blackton was also the director of a number of other Bible films including Salome (1908), Saul and David from 1909, and Jephthah's Daughter; A Biblical Tragedy (1909) which was one of those that was originally due to be shown at the UCL event, but had to be cut for reasons of time.

L'Exode (Exodus)

Louise Feuillade, Gaumont, France, 1920, 13 mins.
The image is, of course, from DeMille's 1923 The Ten Commandments, but of all the silent films about the Moses story, and a good deal of those since, L'Exode is easily the most daring. Whereas DeMille stacked the pack, making Pharaoh's son a brat so that none of us minded when the finger of God bumped him off, L'Exode portrays him far more sympathetically. The result is a thought provoking and challenging film which makes us question which side we are really rooting for. By the end we are glad that Moses and the Israelites have left Egypt, but for all the wrong reasons. Our sympathies lie with the Egyptians and we are relieved to see the children of Jacob ejected from the land.

The film builds carefully towards this climax from its opening scene. Like DeMille's film the story starts between the ninth and ten plagues, In fact, one of the film's German titles was Zehnte Plage (Tenth Plague) - the other being Auszug Der Kinder Israels Aus Ägypten (The Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt). We open with an interior shot of a very elderly Moses consulting men who are presumably the elders of Israel. I say 'presumably' because not only are the intertitles are in German but the interior of the room (I was going to say palace) is sufficiently luxurious to leave the audience wondering which scene from the Bible they have just witnessed. The brilliant-white haired man whose matching beard almost reaches his waist could certainly be Moses, but the room is certainly not typical of a Hebrew slave. But if this is the palace then where is Pharaoh? Or even some in Egyptian dress?

But all becomes clear when those present in the room disband to instruct the Israelites on how to mark their door posts with lambs blood. This scene is again deserves some discussion, not least because it is taken as one long shot which pans back and forth from door to door, focussing in on doors at different depths. This must have been a relatively unusual use of the camera in 1910, but thematically it unifies the individual households as the camera moves gracefully from one to the next.

This panning shot is also fairly graphic, as the camera moves from door to door we see the throats of lambs being slit, their blood being drained off and sprinkled on the doorposts. On a single viewing it's difficult to work out whether or not these lambs were actually killed on set. Certainly movies in those says were not monitored by the American Humane Association and there were several instances of people being killed on set during a shoot. The blood is also flicked onto the doorpost using a hyssop branch rather than daubed as per The Ten Commandments (1956). Exodus 12:22 says only to "Strike" the door with the blood drenched hyssop, but elsewhere in the Torah (Lev. 14, Num. 19) it talks about using Hyssop to sprinkle blood as part of a ritual.

Next we move to inside Moses's house, which is clearly a different building from the room he is shown in earlier. Here he and his family gather to share the passover meal. Exodus has God calling for this meal to be celebrated at night, yet light streams into the room from an upper window. This may have been a mistake, or a theological statement about new light or a new dawn or such like. Either way, the resulting shot is stunning. The Bioscope basks in its "Rembrandt lighting". Certainly it was the most memorable shot in the whole collection of films, and thankfully the director was sufficiently aware of his achievement to linger on the short for us to fully enjoy it.

The scene is very much reminiscent of the same scene in DeMille's 1956 The Ten Commandments, only without Rembrandt's lighting: an unadorned room with only a plain table in the middle; various guests, including servants, joining in the meal; newcomers entering via the door in the wall on the right hand side of the camera. There is seemingly no other room in building and the camera stays largely at a distance with the length of the table crossing the width of the screen. Given that DeMille had always been a devout Christian, and his interest in films was such that he would make his first movie just four years later, it's more than possible that he saw this film and was, on some level, influenced by it, though perhaps only DeMille could take such a wonderfully composed shot and remove it's most striking element for the sake of biblical fidelity.

It's at this point that the film's emphasis moves from Moses and the Israelites to the Egyptians. We're introduced to Pharaoh's son but, in contrast to the 1923 DeMille version, he is shown sympathetically. Here is a normal child that one cannot help but warm to - a sense of connection that is immediately overshadowed by the knowledge that we know his fate. Perhaps even more unusually, as he begins to display signs of illness we see Pharaoh's tenderness toward his son, and the concern of his carers.

The son's death is followed fairly swiftly by a cut to the house of a miller where a similar scenario unfolds. The miller and his wife are concerned by their daughter's health, but having placed her on a chair he continues with his work. He's a big man pushing a huge millstone, yet the tension of the previous scene and the sickening sense that we know what is shortly to occur is heightened as the miller slowly grinds the millstone round one more revolution. At first he has is back to her, then his view of her is obstructed by the stone itself. By the time he returns to where he started the child has died. The grief is palpable, all the more on the day due to Stephen Horne's hauntingly evocative live piano accompaniment.

There's a wealth of symbolism here. Whereas Pharaoh sits at the very top of this kingdom, the miller sits at the bottom. Pharaoh was at least responsible for what unfolds: the miller is entirely innocent. His back-breaking work almost indistinguishable from that of the Hebrew slaves. As the camera first cuts to the scene it seems almost unimportant - as if an important character is about to enter and make an announcement, perhaps announcing the death of Pharaoh's son, or of children all over the nation. In contrast to the scene with Pharaoh's son, here, it only gradually dawns on us that this is the scene we are waiting for, and that therefore the little girl is also doomed. There's no doubt that much could also be made of the symbolic nature of his profession, going round in circles, crushing the grain and so on.

As if the emotional impact of these two scenes was not great enough, the next is a real sucker punch. In a courtyard, perhaps in Pharaoh's palace, two parents mourn their lost child. They are soon joined by two more, and then two more, and so on until the frame is crammed with parents mourning their lost children. It's the kind of scene that is utterly absent from both the Bible and from any other film version of this story, creating sympathy for the Egyptians, and causing believers to re-visit this story from the point of view of those on the other side. Horne accompaniment may have made it all the more poignant, but the sympathy for those on the losing side of this biblical narrative is certainly there amongst the visuals alone. The scene concludes with an intertitle that mentions the 430 years in Egypt and the 600,000 Hebrews that let Egypt during the Exodus.

But given these three scenes, it is hardly surprising that when the Israelites leave, they are almost thrown out, rather than leaving joyously with gifts from the Egyptians. Indeed they are quite literally shown the door. The scene is on a much smaller scale than the one from The Ten Commandments (1923) shown above and is relatively short. The film's abrupt ending, just as the Exodus begins, seems to reinforce the Egyptian perspective - there's no concern for how the Hebrews will fare now. L'Exode (Exodus) is not so much about the birth of one people group so much as the death of another.

The BFI synopsis suggests that either the start of this film was missing, or that I don't recall it and failed to write notes on it. Here is their entire summary:

BIBLICAL DRAMA. Moses warns Pharaoh; marking the Israelites' doors; the Passover feast; the death of the firstborn; the Israelites leave the city. No main title or first intertitle. Pharaoh sits, surrounded by his court. Four women bring in his son whom he kisses affectionately. A black guard announces Moses, who is always led by Aaron and followed by a group of Israelites. Moses foretells the tenth plague and leaves. Pharaoh embraces the boy (133). " Die Vorbeerereitungen zum Osterfest..." (149). Moses, with long white forked beard, seated indoors while Aaron kneels besides him, instructs the Israelites about the Passover (246). Street: man takes a dead lamb indoors while a woman holds a bowl of blood and a man marks doorposts with blood. Pan to Moses sprinkling blood on another doorpost. By a third door a lamb's blood is being drained (380). "Das Erste Osterfest..." (395). Indoors: A couple lay a table. The Israelites enter. Moses celebrates the first passover: he preaches and prays. A roast lamb is put on the table. Moses hands out food (714). "Die Zehnte plage..." (730). Pharaoh's son sleeps surrounded by harpist, mandolin player and fanwaver. Pharaoh enters, kisses him and leaves. The boy starts up, gasps and flops dead, arms outstretched (823). A man pulls two huge vertical millstones round a central post on a horizontal six foot millstone while his wife cradles their son. She joins her husband's work. The child wakes, chokes and dies (912). The dead firstborn are brought into the street by their wailing parents. Moses and the Israelites enter. Pharaoh tells them to leave (1050). " Der Auszug..." (1063). Outside the city gates: Pharaoh sits on a dais among a crowd. The exodus: an excited child runs out of the gates, followed by Aaron leading Moses, crowds of Israelites, a herd of goats and two camels (1171). Incomplete (1476ft). Note: The four surviving German intertitles have the Gaumont logo: a G in a ring of stars. They are numbered AL B 2375 2 to AL B 2375 5. Note: Also held: A 690ft viewing copy in faded colour 205627A. It consists of: Moses instructing Israelites; marking doors; Passover feast (133-582); A one foot glimpse of the black guard from the first scene; The exodus (1063-1171ft) The order on the viewing copy is currently B A C D

Moïse Sauvé des Eaux (Moses saved from the River)

Henri Andréani, Pathé, France, 1910, 8 mins
Moïse Sauvé des Eaux was the first of three silent Bible films shown at the Ancient World in Silent Cinema event last week. Despite the similarity of subject and proximity of production, it was noticeable how different all three films were.

As much as anything, this film stood out for its use of colour. Contrary to popular belief colour was fairly popular in silent films: the earliest films use colour filters or hand-tinted the prints to bring in colour, whilst two- and three-strip technicolour was in use during the 1920s. Given that this film was made in 1910 it was too early to be even two-strip technicolor. That said, the films in which I had seen hand-colouring used had done so fairly primitvely. Lots of colouring outside the lines and so on. By contrast, the colouring in was so impressive that I'm still not entirely convinced that this was a hand-tinted film, but so far no other explanation suffices.

The film itself starts with Amram working with his fellow Israelites when a messenger brings the edict from Pharaoh that male, Hebrew babies are to be executed. We see the message courtesy of an intertitle styled like a scroll which contrasts with Pathé's usual red text on a black background style. As his son will later do, Amram steps in to stop a fellow slave getting beaten and then makes his way home to warn his family.

Inside the house, Amram and his wife (who is identified as Jochebed) decide to hide Moses whilst Miriam and Aaron look on. Rather unusually they wrap him up in straw and hang him from a hook above head height. The Egyptian soldiers are soon upon them and proceed to stick a sword into anything that looks like it might contain a baby, even the bundle of straw on the hook next to Moses's. The scene is actually rather tense, all the more impressive given the audience already knows that Moses will survive.

An intertitle card quotes Hebrews 11:23 and we revert to the exterior shot outside Amram and Jochebed's house. Shortly afterwards we see Jochebed gather Moses and a basket and head to the river with Miriam. There basket and baby are placed in the reeds, where they remain (rather than being floated down the river as in most other Moses films) which is actually in keeping with Exodus 2:3. Miriam hides - rather poorly it must be added - to keep an eye on her little brother, and when Pharaoh's daughter and her entourage come along she is quick to offer her mother's services as a wet nurse. So little time has elapsed that Jochebed has not gone far and baby and mother are reunited. There's a brief introduction to the Pharaoh.

The portrayal of Amram is also interesting, as although he is usually portrayed as rather a passive figure, he is depicted here as more of a heroic character.

Campbell and Pitts make no mention of this film and even the BFI database gives it a mere paragraph.

DRAMA. Biblical. The story of Moses. No main title. Credit (2). The father of Moses is seen at work with the Israelites. An edict is read by Pharaoh's messenger announcing that all newborn male sons of the Israelites must be put to death. The Israelites are angered and return to their homes. Moses' father tells the family of the edict. Pharaoh's soldiers arrive to collect the newborn boys. Moses is hidden in a basket hanging from the roof. The soldiers enter but fail to find the child. The mother takes Moses and his sister takes a basket, they bid farewell to the distraught father and take the child to the Nile. There they set Moses adrift in the rushes. Pharaoh's daughter and her entourage arrive at the river to bathe. They discover the baby and Pharaoh's daughter adopts him. Moses' mother imposes herself on Pharaoh's daughter and offers her services as a wet nurse. Pharaoh's daughter agrees. On their return to court Pharaoh's daughter presents Moses to her father (707ft). Note: German titles.

Painting is Nicolas Poussin's "The Finding of Moses" from 1638.

Moses, Called by God (1958)

Having covered the gospels in 1951 and Acts in 1957, The Living Bible series turned to the Old Testament in 1958 with 14 episodes from Abraham to Elijah. The Moses story was given two episodes: Moses, Called by God which covered the events in Exodus up to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds; and Moses, Leader of God's People which covers Israel's wilderness years. Given that just the year before DeMille's second version of The Ten Commandments had been playing in cinemas it's interesting to see how the two productions compare. Because the latter films were part of a series, the intention behind their created was not a direct rebuttal, even if aspects of the film tries to put the record straight. That said, I'd argue that films which cover the same material as an immensely popular film very shortly after it, are perhaps those that are least influenced by it. It's too early for intentional homage, any copying would be too obvious to the casual viewer. Furthermore, any filmmaker visiting the material so soon after a major release would, in all probability, already have had their own strong ideas about how the story should be told. But a decade later, it would be likely that filmmakers would have been influenced before they started thinking through how they would shoot the story.

In this particular case, it was inevitable that the two productions would be very different. The Living Bible series typically adopted a slavish dependence on the Biblical text, whereas DeMille added in a huge amount of extra-biblical material. And then there's the budget. Whilst DeMille saves his special effects for mere a handful of scenes, everything about the latter two films suggest they were made for the smallest possible budget. There's no eerie greenish mist stealing away the Egyptians' first born, just a scene in Pharaoh's palace moments later. Heston's staff morphed effortlessly into a snake.; here there's just a cheap jump cut. Ironically, the best managed effect occurs during the parting of the Red Sea when the latter film throws aside biblical fidelity in favour of a DeMillean instant parting (although it's perhaps DeMille's 1923 version that is more the influence here than his 1956 film).All of that aside, this is one of the stronger entries in the Living Bible Series. The uncredited actor playing Moses has a few good moments and the film's pacing is very good. In particular, many films about Moses skip a plague or two, presumably to avoid monotony. But here they include all ten without things ever feeling dragged out. And there's something very refreshing in the way which this film sticks to the basic story without trying to puff up the relationship between Moses and Ramsees. In fact the Pharaoh's are never even named in this particular film.

Anyway, here's a run down of the scenes that the film covers:

Introduction - (Exodus 1:1-14)
Slaughter of the infants - (Ex 1:22)
Moses put into the river - (Ex 2:1-4)
Princess finds Moses - (Ex 2:5-6)
Miriam finds a wet nurse - (Ex 2:7-8)
Moses kills an Egyptian & flees - (Ex 2:11-15)
The Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Moses meets Aaron - (Ex 4:27-28)
Moses before Israel's leaders - (Ex 4:29-31)
Moses asks Ramsees - (Ex 5:1-3)
Bricks without straw - (Ex 5:4-21)
Ten Plagues - (Ex 7:14-11:10; 12:29-30)
Pharaoh releases the slaves - (Ex 12:31-37)
Pharaoh changes his mind - (Ex 14:5-8)
Parting of the sea - (Ex 14:10-31)
Song of Moses - (Ex 15:2)

A Few Notes
This is the only time, at least that I can think of, where Moses's adopted mother (here Pharaoh's daughter) both recognises and openly acknowledges that the baby that has just been pulled from the Nile is an Israelite. It's an interesting angle, particularly as it leads much more naturally to the conversation between her and Miriam which results in Moses's mother being brought in as a wet nurse.

It also means that the emphasis for Moses's slaying of the Egyptian is put back on him, rather than his struggle to some to terms with a new identity or anything like that. By this point the film is only 4 minutes in, which strongly contrasts with DeMille's film. Obviously that film was around 15 times as long as this, but even as a proportion of the overall run time, this film deals with that part of the story much quicker (in the 1956 film it takes around half of the film's runtime).

The other scene that particularly interested me was the one where Moses first appears before Pharaoh. Firstly, we're told it's a new Pharaoh, but he's played by the same actor. Presumably it was cheaper to make it this way, and a strong family resemblance is certainly not unusual. But it also gives the film a bit of extra meaning. It strengthens the link between these two Pharaohs (DeMille consciously tries to break the continuity by inserting an extra, more sympathetic Pharaoh in between the one who killed the babies and the one who was on the throne during the plagues. It also could be read as a symbol of Egyptian unity, or their facelessness to the Israelites. Perhaps I'm reading too much in.Secondly, both Aaron and Moses speak to Pharaoh. In the Bible Aaron is brought in as a mouthpiece for Moses, but it's unclear whether it's he or his brother that actually speak the words to Pharaoh - If Aaron was Moses's mouthpiece then it would not be surprising if words physically uttered by Aaron, were attributed to their source, Moses. Alternatively, it may just be that once Moses was inside the palace he found he didn't need his brother's help. From a cinematic point of view, it doesn't work so well if your leading man and hero figure seems to lack the courage even to speak so the majority of films have had Moses do the speaking. One notable exception here is the 1996 Moses which actually goes as far to give Moses a stutter first time we meet him. It's also the central theme of Straub and Hulliet's adaptation of Moses und Aron, but to go into that would be a major tangent.

Thirdly, and again siding with the Bible against the majority of Moses films, Moses and Aaron's initial request is for three days time off to worship in the desert. It's never really clear in the Bible how this ends up as a request for permanent freedom - the most likely explanation lies in differences between the four sources that lie behind Exodus. Likewise here, it's unclear at what point the request changes. But it appears that rather than trying to copy the Bible's confusion, this is mainly due to the way that the plagues are shown through narrated over montage.

Finally, the cries of the Egyptian people seem to have some bearing on Pharaoh's decision to release the Israelites. Again the voices of the ordinary Egyptians generally tend to go unheard in these films; Pharaoh makes his decisions either in isolation or only in the presence of his court. This is significant, because, the ordinary Egyptians probably also suffered greatly under their rulers. Looking at the Exodus story from their point of view is fairly disturbing. Having suffered under Pharaoh's lavish building programme they suffer terribly under the ten plagues culminating in the death of their children. Whilst a lot of them would have had roles in the Egyptian hierarchy, many of them would be entirely "innocent", in a sense, and the terrible suffering they faced at the hands of this loving God should trouble us and cause us to re-examine the passages in question. Whilst the film doesn't quite go this far, like the original text, it does at least allow the ordinary Egyptians a voice unlike other films which have bypassed such difficult questions by leaving them in the wings.

Giving of the Ten Commandments

My church is looking at the Ten Commandments at the moment, so I got asked to dig out some clips of Moses receiving the commandments. I looked at the following five which are probably the best crafted of those available:

The Ten Commandments (1923)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Moses the Lawgiver (1975)
Moses (1996)
Ten Commmandments (2006)

As well as being the best clips they are probably the most widely known. The other popular Moses film that is not on the list is obviously The Prince of Egypt, but this only really shows a brief shot of Moses holding the commandments right before the credits roll. Likewise there is no equivalent scene in 1974's Moses und Aron For the record I could also have included clips from the following:

Green Pastures (1936)
The Living Bible - Moses, Leader of God's People (1958)
Greatest Heroes of the Bible - The Ten Commandments (1979)
History of the World Part 1 (1981)
The Ten Commandments: The Musical (2006)
Ten Commandments (2007)

...not to mention a whole host of cartoons.

Anyway, for anyone interested in repeating the exercise elsewhere, here are the start and end places/times of the clips I used - the clip length, and the version that I used. In most cases these are region 2, but I imagine the difference will be very slight, particularly as the DVD releases for the first two are identical regardless of the regional code. Links are to previous posts on each film. I've also added the leading actor's name and a few comments.
The Ten Commandments (1923)
Ten Commandments (1956) 50th Anniversary Collection – region 2
Disc 3 - Chapter 6; 35:05 – 42:48 [7:43 minutes]
Moses played by Theodore Roberts
This is the oldest of those available, and, for those unused to silent films, the style takes a bit of getting used to. Note the age of Moses here, and also that DeMille's citations are from Exodus 31 and 32 rather than the first account of the giving of the commandments in Exodus 19 and 20.

The Ten Commandments (1956)
Ten Commandments (1956) 50th Anniversary Collection – region 2
Disc 2 – Chapter 15; 73:12 – 78:45 [4:30 minutes]
Moses played by Charlton Heston
This is, obviously the most famous version, but it's utterly reliant on DeMille's earlier version. The streak of fire writing the commandments is fresh, but otherwise it's just a remake. Note how in both examples Moses receives the commandments at the top of the mountain, and whilst commandments 1 and 2 are being broken (not that the people would have known given this film's chronology!)

Moses the Lawgiver (1975)
Network/Granada Ventures – Region 2
Disc 2 – Chapter 3; 10:48 – 15:00 [4:12 minutes]
Moses played by Burt Lancaster
This is perhaps the most controversial version of these events, but it's relatively accurate to the accounts in Exodus. The clip ends with Moses on his way up the mountain with the tablets already under his arm, with the people having already agreed. An earlier scene shows Moses hearing God's call (in Lancaster's own voice) from the top of the mountain, but it's entirely ambiguous as to whether these commandments are from God or from Moses. It's also good how they are given more as prose than as "commandments".

Ten Commmandments (2006)
Disc 2 – Chapter 7; 68:10 – 72:04 [3:52 minutes]
Moses played by Dougray Scott
This is the most recent of the five, and it's main concern seems to be showing off it's technology. There's a heavy dependence on DeMille too - the idea of Moses going up the mountain to get the tablets, and of them being literally written by God (although not literally the "finger of God" as the text states), not to mention the desire to make this a showy scene.

Moses (1996)
Time Life Box Set – region 2
Part 2; 29:30 – 36:20 [6:50 minutes]
Moses played by Sir Ben Kingsley
This is perhaps my favourite of these five clips, largely because I had to see it to make me realise how the story actually appears in Exodus. It's sticks very closely to the text (Exodus 19:10-20:21), but given how stagey other version have been, this is a good thing, which is also why I recommend showing it last. I also like the idea of the commandments being something that welled up from the people as they encountered God, and the idea of the people corporately being the mouthpiece of God.