Exodus: Gods and Kings - Analysis and Review

"I'm willing to fight for an eternity."

It almost felt like an eternity watching this film. Which is heavily disappointing given that this is my favorite story from the Bible.

The Plot

Moses (Christian Bale), the prized general of Egypt discovers that he is actually a Hebrew slave's son. When Ramses (Joel Edgerton), a man Moses once viewed as a brother and now Pharaoh of Egypt, learns of this truth, he has Moses banished from Egypt. But in exile, Moses discovers his true course in life as a messenger for God. 

Analysis

I'm going to address this in here. I was one of the many people who is not bothered by the race issue. I love The Ten Commandments. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and my favorite Biblical movie. Which is filled with many, and I mean many, white people in bronzer and eye liner. Lots of bronzer and eye liner. Granted, I was just 8 when I saw the movie and the picture book Bible that I read had illustrations that depict everyone as white. So I just assumed that's the way it was, and never questioned it. However, as I got older and delved into other mythologies and the regions they originate from, it was a shock for me to find out that Egypt is in Africa. And even more shocking was discovering that the people who originally inhabited the region were black. So that changed my perception of Egypt, but that didn't make me angry about Yul Brener playing Ramses. It was just nice knowing that information.

So when the time came for Ridley Scott to take up the reins of Exodus, I was curious what the casting would be like. And as I predicted, most of them are white. Now, there are a couple of reasons why I know this was going to happen. For one, the Egyptians are technically the antagonists of the film. If black actors and actresses were to be casted as the Egyptians, it would've been praised for some but bashed by others. Mainly because, having a large African nation be portrayed as the villains and being punished by God will not sit well for some Black Civil Rights groups. It would be viewed as a demonizing of blacks as well as white propaganda to show that God hates black people. And it would be strengthen even more if the Hebrews, who are Jewish, are portrayed by nothing but white actors. Which would've added to the fire. Which brings me to another point.

The Hebrews who would become the Jewish people who inhabit Jerusalem today do not look the way they do now. In fact, they look more like dark skinned Arabs rather than the fair skinned people that are associated with Judaism today. So if Hollywood were to cast the Hebrews properly with the matching ethnicity of the time, they would have to be of Arab descent. The problem? Most Arabs have an Islamic background, meaning they are forbidding from portraying their Prophets or any story from the Quran in any shape or form. In short, they're forbidden from playing anyone in Holy Texts. That includes The Bible or The Talmud. Which automatically dismisses them from portraying anyone like Moses or the Hebrews in this movie. So of course other ethnicities have to be considered. But then again, although that should be the logic behind the casting, there is a primary truth as to why white people were casted: White Christians.

America still has a large white Christian population that prefers seeing famous white actors portraying their beloved Prophets as white people. This has been embedded in their mindset since the days of Charlton Heston, and it is not going away any time soon in our generation or the next. So with that in mind, I view that as a the primary reason why white people are still casted in ethnic roles today. But if there were to be other arguments besides that, then I would just point to my stances on how black people would react and why most Arabs cannot act in these films. It is just an endless cycle of problem after problem because the world is full of intolerable people. I don't care how much people make claims of "It's 2014" or "It's 2035" because I can guarantee you intolerance will never change. So no, I don't have a problem with white people being in this movie... for the first minute of the film.

Review

It is a jarring thing, seeing John Tuturro play a Pharaoh. His performance wasn't memorable, yet what was most memorable about him is how much I felt he doesn't belong in this movie. And that's the saddest part about this movie. The most memorable thing about it, is seeing how much all these white actors in Egyptian roles don't seem to belong in the film. Which should tell you something about someone who doesn't care about the race issue of casting. That doesn't mean I think all of them were out of place.

Joel Edgerton as Ramses was not jarring for me to look at. This was probably because he was heavily promoted, which prepared my mind to accepting him as playing this ancient Egyptian king. But because he was the only one heavily promoted in the trailers and TV spots, my mind couldn't adjust when I see the like Tuturro, Sigourney Weaver and countless other accomplished white actors in these roles. It's like my mind could not accept any of them except for Edgerton. Yet my mind was accepting of Indira Varma as the High Priestess, probably because she's not white. So yes, it will be jarring because something just doesn't seem right about these actors playing these roles. But it doesn't prevent them from being good actors in their roles.

Edgerton was fine as Ramses. He is pretty much a spoiled brat who was given little attention by his father, which gives him this ego that he has to be better than his father. Edgerton plays it as best as he could, yet I couldn't help but feeling like a lot was missing from his story. In fact, I feel like a lot was missing from this story. Mainly the relationship between his character and Christian Bale's Moses. A relationship that should've been the heart of this movie, and it was set up at the beginning brilliantly, but it never really amounted to anything. Which is such a waste because Bale plays a great Moses. It would've been powerful to have these two powerhouse actors play two brothers who have to face off against each other, but it never feels like the relationship was firmly established to make us feel that way.

Bale's Moses is pretty much a different take on the character. This Moses is more of an atheist who after suffering a trauma becomes a babbling psychopath who now believes in God. So much so that he even speaks to God, who in this film is portrayed as a highly intelligent and merciless child. This interpretation of God and Moses probably stems from director Ridley Scott's atheist beliefs but tries so hard to rationalize it in a politically correct manner as to not to offend any atheists who watch the film. Which, while interesting, devoid the film of something that is important for a Biblical epic: Wonder.

All the plagues and the miraculous acts of "God" in this film have scientific explanations. In other words, this movie makes it all seem like a coincidence. The atheistic Moses just happened to start believing in God and just happened to return to Egypt when all these devastating plagues are happening at the same time. The Red Sea just happens to part at the moment Moses and his people needed it to, not because God parted the Red Sea. Which is pretty disappointing for someone who was in awe of the Red Sea sequence in The Ten Commandments to just see the Red Sea in this film be the sudden shifting of the tides. The Egyptians in the film even try so hard to explain how everything has an explanation and is not an act of God. And because of this, this sense of wonder and power is gone. I don't care what your belief is, but even my atheist friends know, if you're doing a film about Moses, it needs to show off the power of God.

So all in all, a movie that really only has two memorable performances in it: Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, and a politically correct way of explaining how God works for non-believer audiences, becomes a movie that has no soul. I highly doubt casting ethnically appropriate actors could save this movie, because it would've still have the same problems. With a lack of a strong relationship between Moses and Ramses along with a very boring explanation of how all the acts of God happen in this movie, the best Biblical story is now the worst one. It is beautiful to watch, but just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it has personality.

Final Thoughts

Darren Aronofsky is an atheist who grew up Jewish and used his Jewish background to craft a dark story about Noah. Yet, that film still had something wonderful and magical about it that makes it feel special and miraculous despite the dark subject matter it explores. Ridley Scott is an atheist who puts his views into a Biblical films and instead of trying to make something fantastical, as one should, he instead makes something that has no soul. There was a soul in Noah, and that was made by an atheist. So how is it that a director who has been around longer than Aronofsky and created one of the most magical fairy tale films in the 80s, Legend, could not create something wonderful and empowering with this film? Because to be honest, it is a boring remake of Gladiator. No joke. If you think about it, this film is not a Bible film, it is a plot for plot remake of Gladiator.

SCORE: 4/10 - Bale and Edgerton are wasted in this beautiful, boring remake of Gladiator

NOAH - Movie vs Graphic Novel

There's always something different

**THIS ANALYSIS CONTAINS SPOILERS**

This is an analysis on the differences between the film and the graphic novel, NOT the actual Biblical account. For my thoughts on Biblical Film Adaptations see:

Film Adaptations - Going Biblical

AGAIN, this is an analysis and semi-review of the NOAH film and graphic novel.

If you are reading this, then I'm assuming you have seen the film or read the graphic novel or done both. However if you are reading this without having seeing the film or reading the graphic novel but still wish to do so then I advise seeking this article at a later time. If you do not care about seeing the film or reading the graphic novel...then go right on ahead.

My thoughts on the Film

I believed Noah is a great film that is also significantly flawed in a few places. Not so much the execution of wanting to show the madness of a family dealing with the pressures of being the sole survivors of an apocalypse, but rather character interactions. The motivations for the primary antagonist of the movie Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winstone are fairly one dimensional. He is very straightforward in his beliefs: we are the masters of the universe and God (The Creator) has abandoned us. He is the poison that infects the mind of Noah's son, Ham played by Logan Lerman, into plotting to betray Noah. His purpose really is just to be this antagonistic force for the story. He shows himself to be resilient to the point where when his army is killed by the flood he manages to break into the Ark before being drowned. No matter how one looks at it, he is a very straight forward character.

Then of course there is the case of Ham seeking out a wife among the savage army of survivors. He does so by finding a woman named Na'el played by Madison Davenport. She's given enough character to make the audience feel sorry for her when she ultimately gets caught in a bear trap. When Noah has the chance to save her, he does not, and instead leaves her to get trampled to death by an oncoming army.

The reason why I bring that up is because those parts of the film that I viewed as kind of weak are actually made stronger in the Graphic Novel.

My thoughts on the Graphic Novel

As an avid comic book reader, this is one of the most beautifully made graphic novels I got my hands on in a while. The real reason why I picked it up was mainly because the images that were shown to promote the production of the film were directly from the graphic novel. So I was expecting the film to live up to the visuals that I saw in those few images. From those few images and what I saw from the film, I thought Darren Aronofsky did a great job translating his vision from comic book to film. Was I too quick to judge? Apparently yes after reading the Graphic Novel.

As I stated, this is one of the most beautiful graphic novels I've seen. The story, is pretty much beat by beat exactly the same as the one in the film. So comparing which story is better is pretty much pointless. However in terms of which character motivation and development works out better, then that's where the clear distinction lies.

How the comic is better than the movie

Noah in the graphic novel may not be a vegetarian like his film counterpart. In the beginning of the film he stops some hunters from killing a mythical creature. In the graphic novel he stops a group of hunters from killing wooly rhinos for sport. He states that he doesn't mind them killing animals, but he does mind them wasting animals just to take a useless part of them. So he does wish that mankind can go about things differently as opposed to his film counterpart who seems rather indifferent about what humanity does.

When Noah starts to receive visions of a flood, his film counterpart seeks out his grandfather for advice. The graphic novel counterpart still seeks out his grandfather, but before doing so he does something I now realized I wished the film counterpart did: WARN THE SURVIVING HUMANS. Noah takes his eldest son Shem to the kingdom of the last surviving humans of the planet. There he asks permission of their king, Tubal-Cain, to speak before his people about the oncoming storm. He grants them permission. However as one would predict, no one believes Noah's preaching which leads the king to banish him from the Kingdom.

Of course this leads to the chase into the land of the Watchers and that's where the graphic novel realigns with the plot of the film. But that one scene of Noah preaching to humanity and that exchange with Tubal added more character and depth to both of these characters that was missing in the film. In the graphic novel it is clear that Noah is a good but conflicted man and that Tubal is a vile but just king who has some respect for Noah.

This carries over to the portion where they confront each other when the Ark is being built. In the film it was the first time these two meet, but in the graphic novel it is a plea for forgiveness. Tubal pleads with Noah to forgive him and his people for not listening to him. Noah tells Tubal to order his people to start building their own boats, but Tubal knows that they'll never have enough boats in time for the flood. So Tubal makes a deal with Noah that him and 25 other people of his choosing will be allowed entry onto the flood while the rest of his people die. Noah agrees to this only to buy more time to finish the Ark. This exchange is handled much better than in the film, but then again their interaction is far great in the graphic novel. But this interaction will help with another key plot point.

When Ham meets Na'el in the graphic novel, it is the same as the film. However what sets it apart is that the survivors find them and plot to hold them ransom so that Noah will allow them on the Ark. That is when Tubal-Cain comes to Ham and Na'el's rescue! With his royal guard, he saves Ham and Na'el from his own people believing that Noah would still hold up his end of the deal. However upon arrival it became clear that this was not the case. And so feeling betrayed by Noah, he channels the rage of his people directly at Noah instead of him for abandoning them. This small act is what makes the interaction of Ham saving and aiding Tubal in the attempted murder of Noah on board the Ark much more plausible. In the film their interaction prior to working together on the Ark was a small exchange that doesn't plausibly explain why the two would respect each other. But if Na'el was allowed passage on the Ark, then why would Ham help him still? 

Although she was allowed passage on the Ark when Tubal brings them, during the battle Noah deems that she needs to be removed. And so he coldly orders an angel to take her off the boat, with Noah's entire family watching in horror as he does this. It is unknown what happens to her, but it can only be referenced that she gets casted into the oncoming army. This displays the first signs of Noah's madness and exposes it to his family. That alone triggers a lot of distrust and would drive Ham to help Tubal in plotting the murder of his father.

In conclusion

It just makes more sense why Tubal-Cain is the villain that he is and why Ham would try to go about killing his father. And for those who believed that the Noah of the film was heartless, in the graphic novel he does indeed have a heart but his progression to madness is more gradual.

It is amazing that the director of the film could not even adapt faithfully his own graphic novel. And while I'm usually not a champion of the term "the book was better," in this instance I'd have to say that it clearly was.

Film Adaptations - Going Biblical

Biblical Movies and Me

Having been raised Roman Catholic with the help of some very colorful Children's Bibles, there were only a few stories that stood out to me. There was The Creation, The Great Flood, and Exodus. What helped fuel my interest in those three stories? Animated Hanna-Barbera cartoons that brought these stories to life. What would also fuel my interest in these stories? Knowing that there are live-action movies based on them. The most famous being Charlton Heston's Ten Commandments. 

What I would later discover is that I'm not so much interested in these subjects because of a complete faith in God. In fact, I don't even view these stories as prime examples of enforcing one's faith in God. These stories were powerful to me just through the sheer power of storytelling. The size, the scale, the characters, what drives them. That's what had me interested in those three specifically. Of course there is a moral to be told about putting faith in God, but I can view these as great stories that have the potential to be tapped into great cinema.

Lucky for me, The Ten Commandments is one such film that shows that these types of stories can have a grand cinematic power. While I do believe there are stories in the Bible that should be brought on film, I do not agree that they have to be "faithfully" put on screen.

My Criticism of "Faith-Based" and "Accurate Biblical" Films

Nothing is perfect. No one will ever be able to make an accurate cinematic depiction of the Bible. That's just something people will have to accept. Especially with times changing.

I wrote this article mainly due to overhearing a conservative talk show that my mother frequently listens to. I was fascinated by how much they hated the latest Biblical Epic Film, NOAH, though I wouldn't exactly called myself surprised. I've been keeping track of the making of Darren Aronofsky's Biblical epic for years from the beginning when he wanted Christian Bale as Noah to when he made it a graphic novel to finally beginning production with Russell Crowe. Because I knew that the conservative talk show was very Christian based, I can already predict the problems that would be listed. "Wasn't accurate, not faithful, and no mention of God." That's pretty much the sum of what they're saying.

The one thing that bothered me about those comments was not mentioning God in the movie NOAH because he was mentioned several times throughout the movie. Okay, in the film they called him "The Creator" instead of God, but at least they're acknowledging that there is a God in the film, right? Apparently it is wrong to call God anything else other than God in a movie that is suppose to be about God destroying the Earth. I can understand why some people would be upset. But really, is it that big a deal? I would be more insulted if they did not mention ANY God in the movie to make it more realistic. But the filmmakers did go out their way to mention God, which in the film is called The Creator.

Then comes these comments about how it was not accurate and not faithful. The conservative talk show hosts would site the other Biblical Film, Son of God, as a better movie. It has been sited as being more faithful and more about what God is about. Especially since it shows the love of Jesus. If you may recall I've said in the beginning, I consider myself Catholic, but my favorite stories are The Creation, The Great Flood, and Exodus. None of those include Jesus.

That's not to say Jesus story in the New Testament isn't interesting. But whenever a Christian based production company makes a film about Jesus I never find myself interested to watch it. Even the film Son of God, which was clearly made for TV (it was originally an episode on a show called The Bible) did not interest me or uplifted my faith in Jesus whatsoever. 

I've always felt like Jesus deserves a good modern film. And there have been hundred that are Christian produced that are definitely based around the notion of showing how amazing Christianity is. I'm not one to go against one's beliefs but the main problem I have with these types of films is how heavy handed these can be. 

As a filmmaker and film critic there is one key thing about what makes a great movie that a lot of Christian made films don't have: SUBTLETY. There has to be something powerful that is hidden in the film. Most Christian films are not subtle. They are straight forward in Jesus is great and faith in God is always right. It doesn't make people think. It affirms Christian beliefs but for the average movie goer who doesn't want to think when they go to a movie, don't want someone shoving a message into their brain. The average movie goer wants to pick it up as they go along. I almost want to bash on these conservative talk show hosts who say that we live in a Christian Nation that wants to see Good Christian Movies that promote Good Christian Beliefs when the box office numbers clearly show people would rather watch Transformers.

However, NOAH shows that there is indeed an audience who wants to watch Biblical Epics. People want to see these movies, but there have to be liberties taken on them to do so.

Liberties taken when needed

I'm aware that a lot of creative liberties were taken when crafting NOAH into a movie. There are Grigori (guardian angels called Watchers in the film) building the Ark, there's a battle for the Ark, only one son was allowed a wife, Noah goes completely mad. For a movie that tells a story from the Bible that is not really long, in my opinion the movie sets out to do what it is trying to question: How will you react if you're the only one who gets to survive the end of the world? That is a psychological liberty applied to Noah in the film in order to give the viewers that feeling of "if it were me, wouldn't I be thinking the same thing?' Noah has always been depicted as this joyful man with a long white beard with lots of animals. And its always depicted as a cute and happy story. But what the director is trying to show is that if this really does happen, it would be horrifying. Noah and his family would be conflicted about what they're doing because sure they get to live but among the thousands of evil people are there not good ones too?

Now, I'm not going to go out of my way to say that NOAH is an amazing film. It is definitely a treat to see a Biblical film on the screen done the way a broader audience would be intrigued with seeing. However, I prefer the Graphic Novel that the director created when he feared the movie would not be made. I'll explain my opinions on that later. But creative liberties have always been a part of Biblical films. While in NOAH they were more obvious to add subtlety, in The Ten Commandments there was subtle liberties added to enhance the subtlety.

I can assure you that in the Bible, Moses has a speech impediment and needs his brother Aaron to talk to the Pharaoh. In The Ten Commandments he has no such problem (even though he does claim he has a speech problem, no one believes that) especially if you have Charlton Heston's voice of gravitas. Could one imagine a Moses that stutters or mute because he can't talk properly? Or that his brother has to do all the talking for him? That's not a great "film hero." Also, there was no love story between Moses and the woman who would become the future queen of Egypt. An even bigger liberty? None of the Egyptians were Black Africans, who were the dominant population in that region during that time.

Even the Christian lauded and the Critically divided film Passion of the Christ had some liberties taken by having the Devil present through all of the events instead of just the agony in the garden. Even Judas being tormented by demon children is a liberty taken. However I can praise it for being the most faithful to not only the historical language and look, but also knowing that the film has a subtle message that also can act as a positive Christian Message: He sacrificed himself for you.

Would I do anything differently?

I hope to one day make my own versions of the Noah story and the Moses story on the big screen. Though that's a tough act to follow given that this year a Noah movie just premiered with a Moses movie (EXODUS starring Christian Bale) premiering by the end of the year.

What Noah did, is show me that there is a way to take liberties with a Biblical story and make it interesting. Whether or not my interpretations of those two stories would make it to the big screen is up in the air. But what I can say is this.

People want to see Biblical Epics, as long as they are subtle. The theater is to entertain. Not to preach.