In
2014 we had not one, but two Bible epics hit theaters. I never did get around
to seeing Noah. I was interested in
seen an updated version of the Moses story in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) because the movie technology is such
that elaborate, complex depictions of the ancient world can be shown to
audiences in a way that couldn't have been done years ago. In the hands of
director Ridley Scott, it has great potential. This movie does have the epic
quality of old Bible epics back in the day, but it seemed to be lacking
something to make a lasting effect on you.
Raised
as brothers by Pharaoh Seti (John Tutrurro), Moses (Christian Bale) and
Ramesses (Joel Edgerton) have a mutual respect and love for one another and have fought side by
side defending their home country of Egypt. After Ramesses succeeds his father
as Pharaoh, rumor of Moses being of Hebrew parents comes to Ramesses. Rather
than give into the demands of Queen Tuya (Sigourney Weaver) to kill Moses,
Ramesses exiles Moses from Egypt. Moses creates a new life in Midian where he
meets Zipporah and eventually marries Zipporah (María Valverde). Years later
Moses comes face to face with a burning bush and a boy called Malak (Issac
Andrews), who tells Moses that he must free the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt.
Reluctantly, Moses returns to Egypt and uses his military skills to try to free
his people. But when Ramesses refuses to comply, God sends deadly plagues to
the people of Egypt. Moses tries to keep the Hebrews out of the crossfire, but
the conflict escalates pitting the two brothers against each other.
Now,
the story of Moses has been around since roughly 1300 BCE. Even if you aren't
affiliated with a Muslim or Judeo-Christian religion, you've had plenty of time
to have heard this story before and I'm not going to avoid spoilers in a story
that is well over three thousand years old.
It
truly should go without saying that when a movie based on religious texts is
made, creative liberties are taken. Were creative liberties not taken, there
would be nearly no character development, no meaningful dialogue other than the
most basic and direct communications, and likely no defining theme drawing the
story together coherently. In Exodus:
Gods and Kings some characters aren't what I have been told they are.
Ramesses not so much a stubborn and prideful ruler who thought himself superior
to God, he was more of a spoiled privileged brat who lacked the competence and
foresight to lead a country. Moses wasn't a mighty man of faith but a military
general who may be somewhat off his rocker, we see him grow in faith but it's
not really there when he starts out. I was disappointed that we didn't see the
two characters butting heads more often. Moses didn't go talk to Ramesses
between each plague saying, "Let my people go!" They were at odds
with one another, but we didn't see enough of them opposing each other
specifically to get a feel for what becomes their broken relationship as
brothers.
The
way that God was depicted was particularly interesting. It was a small kid whom
only Moses could see after sustaining a head injury. I don't think this was
supposed to literally be God, but rather a abstract messenger through which God
communicated to Moses. The kid's name is "Malak" which is the Semitic
word for "angel." God in the Old Testament is often depicted as a god
of vengeance and punishment; taking that into consideration, I could see why
this messenger speaking for God would be depicted as a willful, angry, and
petulant child. This may be a deal breaker for some viewers of faith; Christians,
Jews, and Muslims alike see this story as foundational and might find this
portrayal of God to be incompatible with scripture and deeply held beliefs. I
didn't find it offensive. I thought it was an odd way to depict deity, but it
was unique and creative and still kind of fits with this interpretation of the
story. Yet there is a scene when Malak and Moses are talking and the things the
boy says, though powerful and exquisitely delivered by the child actor, made me
think, "Yeah, that's not the same God from The Bible. We went overboard
here, Ridley."
While
I often hear the way some of the plagues were depicted was inaccurate, I
thought it was fascinating. The first plague was water turning to blood. This
was illustrated not by Moses striking the river with his staff causing the
water to turn into blood, but rather having crocodiles in the Nile go on a
killing spree, killing nearly anything that moved in the water, causing the
water to turn red from all the blood. This caused the plague of frogs which
were escaping from the bloody water, which in turn let the insects multiply
unhindered by their natural predators. It goes on like this, and I thought it
was neat. It removes the divine intervention which is what was supposed to have
caused the plagues. Even the parting of the Red Sea seemed to be caused by some
kind of tsunami sea withdrawal that coincided with the escaping Hebrews with
impeccable timing. It's another discrepancy that I appreciated the creativity
of, but didn't see as something that would challenge someone's faith outright.
This
was visually an incredible movie to watch. Egypt was as elaborate and detailed
as I had hoped; it was shown to be a vast country with many inhabitants of all
walks of life. The costumes of the Egyptians as well as the Hebrew slaves
looked fantastic. The plagues were really interesting to see and the meticulous
details that went into them made me grateful I wasn't watching the swarming
locusts in 3-D. The free-flowing visual splendor is so gorgeous to behold that
you feel transported into these ancient days watching this movie.
Exodus: Gods and Kings
isn't one of Ridley Scott's greatest movies. It has its ups and downs, but
lacks something to give it enough oomph to make it a truly memorable movie. It
will likely fade from our collective consciousness before too long, much like
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood did. The
visuals were simply incredible and really sold the historical setting. The
plagues and such were also amazing. Given how many faith-based movies are
content to tell their audiences what to think or feel, it's satisfying to see
one whose images alone are enough to compel an awestruck belief. The story is
spiritually watered down. It doesn't preach to the audience, it doesn't tell us
how to interpret things, and it even removes some of the divine influence these
events are said to have. However, all the characters and symbols are present;
we are left to interpret the story as a faith building story about God's
influence, or simply as a tale that we have passed down for thousands of years.
Overall I liked Exodus: Gods and Kings.
It may not settle so well with some viewers, but it didn't go as far out in
left field as I understand Noah did.
I say this is worth watching even if you are not religiously inclined. Even if
you are religiously inclined, I still say watch it but take it with a grain of
salt. Understand that this is not scripture, but a film director's take on a
very old story.
Are there other Bible stories or ancient texts you think would make a good movie? Comment below and let me know!
Are there other Bible stories or ancient texts you think would make a good movie? Comment below and let me know!
No comments:
Post a Comment