Just saw the movie EXODUS with Christian Bale by Ridley
Scott and the strangest thing happened. Right after the movie, a lady got up
and yelled “this is total bullshit; do not believe any of it”. I thought she
might have been an atheist and was just caught up in the moment but my wife who
overheard her in the bathroom after the movie, said she was saying that “this
is not the way it happened” which meant that she had a preconceived idea how
the story actually did happen.
I am assuming that she is referring to the account as
recorded in her Bible or at least to the old “Ten Commandments” movie with
Charleston Heston in the 1950s.
I found the need for this woman to voice her opinion so
loudly and publicly quite interesting.
As for the movie itself; my wife liked it. I on the other
hand, have mixed feelings.
I have stated in many past blogs that the Exodus story is
very much doubted by practically all Biblical scholars and treated as a story
giving the Jews a historical albeit mythical beginning. There in absolutely no
historical or archaeological evidence of a mass exodus out of Egypt or even
Jewish existence in Egypt in any great numbers. Evidence shows that the Jews
formed into a nation gradually over many years from people inhabiting the
Levant area.
But I am not writing to discuss history but a re-telling of
a very popular Old Testament story held dear by Christians and Jews alike.
I have to say up-front that the cinematography and digital
effects are great as I expect now of every movie I see.
The problem I may be having with this movie may have to do
with me and my preconceived idea how the movie should be done since I am very
familiar with the Biblical story. I realize that Scott did not want to just do
a re-make but wanted to put a personal stamp on this re-telling of the Exodus
story but he did have to follow the storyline as told in the Bible or otherwise
he would be re-writing the story thus creating a new story.
I feel Scott tried to make this story more realistic or
believable and less about God and miracles and thus, I think, he was trying to
say that historically this story could actually be true or show how it could
have actually happened.
He does not take God out of the story; he just makes God
someone that only Moses sees and talks to and thus making Moses the leader the
Jews follow and not the dictates of God per se.
He makes it a point to tell the audience that
the word Jew means “one who wrestles with God” with the emphasis on wrestles.
This fact is illustrated throughout the movie and even at the end when Moses is
chiseling out the Ten Commandments (yes, Moses is writing them down) and God
says that he hopes Moses agrees with most of the commandments; we are used to a
God that commands and not discusses.
The story lacks a smooth progression from Moses being found
floating in the Nile, being raised in the palace, etc. Scott must feel that we
should all know the details by now but I felt not showing those very well-known
details created an uneven story line that had to be filled in during the movie.
Character development was limited to Moses and the pharaoh. The
plague scenes were graphic but disjointed since they all kind of happened at
once and not the orderly progression of asking the pharaoh to “let my people
go” followed by a plague.
Using a young boy to speak for God or represent God is quite
fascinating. My wife had no trouble with this concept but I bet many others
were just appalled. The burning bush was there but no disembodied deep voice
which we expect; just a young boy that appeared very pissed and vengeful.
Ridley Scott is a known atheist and someone that considers
religion as the scourge of the earth so did that personal belief somehow
transfer into the movie…?
This movie was not easy to analyze so I will have to read up
more on others opinions but as far as entertaining goes…not so much for me but
others probably yes. So far it is not doing that well at the box office.
No comments:
Post a Comment