David (2025)

It's been eight months since Angel Studios' animated family-friendly musical David (2025) was released in the USA, but next month it will finally open in the UK, with a seemingly decent selection of cinemas lined up to screen it. This is something that is becoming increasingly common for animated biblical children's films, following Noah's Ark: A Musical Adventure (Arca de Noé, Brazil) in 2024 and last year's The King of Kings (South Korea).

Opening titles

The film opens saying it's "Based on the story of David from 1 & 2 Samuel" and while the reason it doesn't mention the Davidic material in 1 Chronicles is probably just for the sake of brevity, it does also capture nicely the breadth of material the film covers, as the narrative in Chronicles begins just before the start of David's reign.

The other thing that is included in those opening titles is "'The Lord has sought for himself a man after his own heart.' 1 Samuel 13:14" and while the use of a specifically Protestant, American, Christian translation (the NASB) is clearly one that corresponds closely to the film's largest expected demographic, it's also a pertinent example of the film's wider appropriation of ancient Jewish/Hebrew narratives to create an American Christian story for the 21st century.[1]    

This verse is particularly notable because, as I pointed out in my last piece on House of David, it's one that is paraphrased by Paul/Luke in the New Testament (Acts 13:22) which gives it a greater significance. (The Book of Samuel also says David "showed utter disrespect for the Lord" (2 Sam 12:14), but that's not part of the story the film is seeking to convey). As with House of David, David is not only Jesus' ancestor and a man "after God's own heart" but a "type" (foreshadowing) for Jesus.

The boy who would be king

We meet David as a boy who is both an animal-loving shepherd (who has a deep connection with his flock) while also being tough and brave in fending off a lion, a story he relays in the Bible when trying to make a case for his suitability as a potential giant-slayer (1 Sam 17). He recovers in time to burst in on a visit to his parents' house by the prophet Samuel. Within minutes, David has been anointed a future king of Israel.

With the anointing oil still dripping from his hair, he is summoned to the palace of the existing king, Saul, who is caught in the depths of a depressive episode.[2] All the musicians in the nation have been called to provide some music to ease his troubles(as Saul had apparently found great comfort in it previously). David is eager to serve and, as he doesn't share his fellow musicians' fear of Saul's black mood, he finds himself alone in the throne room with his lyre.

Saul here is a man of massive stature – reminiscent of Orson Welles in David e Golia (1959) for those who have seen it – yet David not only tames him, but also begins cueing in all the other musicians, emboldening them in their now shared task.

This scene nicely sets up much of what is to unfold. Firstly, David's seeming lack of fear of this huge, angry man anticipates him facing the giant Goliath. Just as the other musicians here (and it is emphasised that it is "all" musicians) quiver in fear, so too will the entire army quake before the enormous Philistine. But it also cues up the way that much of the rest of the film will revolve around Saul's anger towards David and David's ability to rally people around him in the face of such a threat.

Connecting the threads

Unaware of his future, David returns home and chats with his mother, Nitzevet, a name known to us from the Jewish Talmud, but it's interesting that she wears a Mary-esque blue headdress, again reinforcing the typology that links David to Jesus. Not dissimilarly, she is portrayed as a nurturing mother who passes on to David important teaching, a little like Mary does to Jesus in later Christian tradition.

Rather than setting one of David’s many Psalms to music, the filmmakers wrote a new song “Tapestry”, in which Nitzevet sings to her son. The gist of the song is that when we focus on individual threads in a tapestry, we don't see how they connect in the overall picture, that "the creator has designed". 

While the song isn't based on a Psalm, it's interesting that a few recognisable lines from the Psalms are incorporated into the lyrics. A reference to the shepherd and the sheep seems like a nod to Psalm 23. "Lift your eyes above the hills" hints at Psalm 121. Perhaps most noticeable is the line from Psalm 139, "Like the way we work the loom, he knit you from inside the womb". This is, of course, the prooftext most-used by many Christians – and not just those of a politically conservative persuasion – to argue for a pro-life / anti-choice position regarding women’s reproductive rights. Of course, the mention of "knit" ties into the song's textile-based theme, but it also feels like a point is being made rather heavy-handedly.

From an aesthetic point of view, it's the film's most colourful and visually-pleasing scene. It's also noticeable that its theme is picked up again in musical form in one of the film's final pieces of music, when various melodies and lyrics from the songs that have appeared earlier in the film are woven together for a finale.

Goliath

It's always interesting in films about David to see which parts of the story are included, but almost all of them feature the fight with Goliath. Here it occurs relatively early on. One of the things the film does consistently is elevate David's bravery relative to the original text. Firstly, David not only strikes the lion in the opening scene, but risks life and limb charging head on into a collision with it. Then David is shown to be the bravest of all the musicians (as opposed to just being called specifically based on his reputation). 

So, of course, the Goliath he faces isn't just a 9'6" giant (or even a 6'6" one according to the earliest texts – see my post on that) but more than twice the size even of the towering Saul, who seems tiny by comparison. While the animation in the film is very good (particularly compared to the CGI in other faith-based Bible films) I really didn't like the design of the Philistines in general and the Arnie-inspired Goliath in particular.

Nevertheless, the scene doesn't disappoint and there's a great sequence which segues from a God-shot (just as Goliath is mocking the idea of him fighting Israel's god) into a shot of the sun which is then interrupted by the David's sling whipping across the screen with increasing frequency as he winds up that legendary shot.

And there's more

What particularly interests me as a scholar of the Bible on film is, given that this famous episode occurs roughly at the half-way point in the film, where does the script go after that?

David films tend to end in one of three places. Firstly, right after the victory over Goliath itself. Given that in the popular imagination David is known primarily for defeating Goliath, it's not only the climax of the most famous story about him, but also a huge dramatic high point. Indeed in most of the modernised, metaphorical, adaptations of the story – not least a league of sports films – the story ends just after the David-figure has gained victory over their respective Goliath-figure. Even David and Bathsheba (1951), which mainly focuses on the backsliding troubled ruler we encounter from the middle of 2 Samuel, ends up back at the Goliath scene, via a flashback to his famous victory from his younger days. 

Secondly, and perhaps more obviously, there is somewhere around the point of his death. Even if you have to edit some episodes out for brevity, this at least tells the story of his life. These films tend to enjoy the complexity of David's life, his "taking" of Bathsheba and the inter-family conflict that follows. Finally, some productions, particularly those where Saul is prominent, end somewhere around his death and David becoming king.

Given that David's "taking" of Bathsheba is arguably not age-appropriate for a kids film, David was always likely to take the third option and indeed it ends with its titular hero not only crowned king with the support of the people, but a sizeable and now confident army also acclaiming him. 

David's rise [spoilers]

Like most of this sub-group of David films, David's accession to the crown is less messy than it is in the Bible (where Saul's son Eshbaal is initially crowned king of the ten northern tribes, before he gets murdered). David's various marriages (and unconventional dowry payments) are left out. While Saul still throws a spear at David, the details of how Michal and Jonathan aid his escape are condensed. Likewise, the costly support of the priests of Nob is reduced to a fleeting visual reference; David only spares Saul's life once; and Saul never consults the Witch of Endor. Moreover, the time David spends fighting for, and then being rejected by, the Philistines is reduced to a plan where David intends to help Saul by pretending to fight for the Philistines, before turning to fight for Israel.

David's plan, though, never comes to fruition, because moments before the armies clash, David realises that the Amalekites have attacked Ziklag, where the families of he and his men are staying (1 Sam 30). This is an episode that most David films leave out to the extent that I had pretty much forgotten it even existed. Here, though, the film turns it into a finale. Here, David is not initially followed by any of his men, but relies on the families to help him oppose the Amalekites. As if to underline the point about David prefiguring Jesus even more heavily, the Amalekites capture him and literally fix him to a tree in a cruciform pose. But the wives and children rise to their feet, Spartacus-style, singing the line "I will not be afraid". Realising that they are actually outnumbered, the Amalekites turn and flee. 

While I found this scene (and the build-up to it) a little weak dramatically, and rather clichéd, I'm intrigued at its inclusion, particularly given that the proportion of children's films which end with human on human warfare is very low. Israel's army has already learnt this lesson, at least when confronted with the Philistines. Is the point here to present two forms of enemy, the more conventional army of the Philistines and the darker powers of the Amalekites (who only appear as black silhouettes and who appear to dress more unconventionally also)? Or is this making the point that the determination not to fear enemies is not just something for men, but for women and children too? I suppose it could even be making the point that while men might battle the flesh and blood enemies with weapons, that women and children can oppose the powers of darkness with words alone? Perhaps I'm reading in too much. 

David and The Prince of Egypt

However that scene is meant to be interpreted, David is crowned-but-not-actually-crowned afterwards (tabbarded?) and stands upon a rock high above the people, literally ending the film on a high. I can't help but be reminded of The Prince of Egypt (1998) where Moses stands similarly elevated, partly put there, as the scene's soundtrack reminds us, by the faith of the women more than the men. 

Certainly, this is not the only example of David referencing The Prince of Egypt (1998). Earlier on, there's a nice montage coming into Saul's city including scenes of the city being constructed. Not only is all of this reminiscent of the extensive building works in Prince of Egypt, there's even a statue being sculpted which resembles the monuments in the earlier film.

More broadly speaking, the bromance between David and Jonathan also seems to tap into the friendship between Moses and Rameses in Prince of Egypt's opening scenes. I think Jonathan even calls David "brother" at one point.

Perhaps the real clincher though is the wall decorations in Saul's palace (and note that in contrast to all these films, the Bible doesn't recall Saul having a palace, only a "house" (e.g. 1 Sam 18:10)  which depict Saul and David in the Valley of Elah in a fashion that strongly resembles Prince of Egypt's famous hieroglyphics.

So how is it as a film?

David wants to deliver an entertaining, positive and uplifting movie based on the Bible. The animation (aside from Goliath and the Philistines) is good, especially when directors Phil Cunningham and Brent Dawes use it to do things that a conventional camera could not achieve. The songs are fairly memorable and include some clever touches.

Yet while there is a positive and uplifting message, the selecting and wrangling of the material to achieve those aims falls a little short entertainment-wise. From the moment Goliath lands flat on his face the film starts to decelerate. IMDb gives the film's length as 1h49m. Even allowing for Cunningham's minute-long message to camera during the credits, that is a long time for a film where kids will constitute a significant part of the audience.

Moreover, while David's story does contain some incredible highs, there is a lot of failure and pain in Samuel as well. (Even his becoming king is marred by the deaths of his predecessor, whom he loved, and his best friend, which the film shows but doesn't really consider).

Those previous two paragraphs perhaps sound a little too negative, given the generally solid film-making, with some great touches, overall good voice work and well-rounded main character. If it doesn't hit the highs of The Prince of Egypt, it's certainly the best animated feature based on the Hebrew Bible since.

=========

David will be in UK cinemas from August 21st and can be seen in many other parts of the world via Angel Studios. I was provided with a screener to review this film.

That said, more than half of the film is now already available to view (legally) through Angel's YouTube channel if you want to get a feel for it. Peter Chattaway has compiled them into a nice list in the order in which they appear. Peter also notes that when the film opened in the USA on the 19th December, it finished 2nd in the weekend Box Office, with only Avatar 2 ahead of it. 

1 – The word "appropriation" isn't necessarily negative here, after all this is what all biblical films do. An animated children's film shot in ancient Hebrew would be unlikely to find much of an audience across North and South America and Europe. Nevertheless, this feels like a particularly selective and distinctly Christian reading of this, originally Jewish, story.

2 - I've written a more in-depth piece about Saul's mental health, in this piece about the portrayal of Saul in The Bible (2013).

Was Goliath a giant? Height differences and Saul

Image from David (2025)

Somewhere before I've made the following point about the height comparison between Saul and Goliath, but I can't seem to locate where so I'll lay it out again. While most translations of the Bible still give Goliath's height as "six cubits and a span" (around 9'6") this is because either they are too old to know better, or because – often in contravention of their stated approaches to ancient manuscript selection – they prefer to preserve "tradition" over best practice.

One of the few exceptions here is the NRSVUE (even the earlier version of the NRSV get this wrong). It gives Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (around 6'6"). A footnote states "Q ms Gk: MT six". This means that there are variations here between manuscripts. The Masoretic text (MT) gives the height as six cubits and a span, but both the Dead Sea Scrolls text (Q) and the Greek Septuagint text (Gk) give the height as just four cubits and a span. Because "we" ave known about the Masoretic text the longest, it's the one that became the standard, but since then we have discovered the older, (therefore written closer to the original) Dead Sea Scrolls text. 

Sorry if that's a bit complicated, but essentially, faced with two older texts that say Goliath was four cubits and a span; and one more recent text that say it was six cubits the most likely scenario is that the doubly attested shorter Goliath is the closer match to the original text. This is particularly true given (as many David films have amply demonstrated) later adaptations have a tendency to exaggerate the story to make it seem more exciting and/or give God/David more credit. It's really hard to imagine a scenario where anyone would want to the tell the story making the giant seem shorter.

The thing is that if Goliath really were only 6'6" this does change the story a lot, because Goliath was not the only tall person on the battlefield that week. 1 Sam 9:2 describes Saul as being "head and shoulders above everyone else". It's hard to give a precise figure from such a malleable description, but it would suggest he was also well over 6 foot and more importantly he was also in a special category size-wise.

In other words, perhaps the point here is that this was meant to be Saul's fight. Goliath was the Philistine's champion and he calls out Israel's champion, their super tall warrior, their best fighter (as was fairly typical of tribal leaders in those days). He calls out Saul. But Saul is has a crisis of confidence. He fails to trust God (in contrast to David). It's just another way in which the text wants to shame Saul and glorify David. And I suppose the way the textual translation of the text has gone has softened that criticism of Saul a bit through time. Even a 6'6" man would baulk at fighting a man who is perhaps even 9'9". And perhaps given Saul clearly had very poor mental health, maybe cutting him some slack (even if through the medium of poor translation) is not the worst thing in the world.

House of David (2026) s2e04

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). There are some major spoilers in what follows even though most are 2500 years old.

Plot

Flashback to David's first trip to the Tabernacle where his presence caused an outrage. In the story's present day we see David has been telling Mychal about that day. Saul tells Avner to get Joab to kill the one Samuel anointed. Everyone prepares to go to the Tabernacle, except Eliab who is going with Joab and Ahinoam who Saul has banned. Merab tries to reach out to David but he spurns her attempts. Joab takes Eliab on a mission to kill the newly anointed king, but then kills Jesse's neighbours instead of Jesse's household. David rashly charges into battle losing men and Jonathan rebukes him while Merab comforts him.

Meanwhile the Philistines continue in their pursuit of an iron sword as good as Goliath's. The priests of Nob warn Saul that he will have to go through them to get to Samuel. Eshbaal attempts to seduce his wife Dinah, only for her to pull a blade on him. Mychal tells David she won't fight for him if her father has decided he should marry Merab. Eliab considers suicide. Saul attempts to convince Samuel's wife Hila to persuade  her husband to reaffirm his support for Saul as king.

Samuel prays a Tabernacle prayer including words from Ps.86/Ps.103. Jonathan tells Samuel he knows David is the anointed one. Adriel tells David it was he who gave the false name to Saul. The Tabernacle ceremony is completed. David kneels a sings a lament for his slain comrade. Jonathan reaffirms his commitment to David. Mychal tells Merab she won't stand in her way. Sara rejects Jonathan because she secretly holds him responsible for her brother's death. Eliab cannot speak to David, but his other men start to sing in his song as they ride back from Nob.

This episode was fairly mundane, especially given there has already been quite a lot of story-building in the previous two outings. Essentially Saul's court and many others move to Nob to the Tabernacle for the Feast of the Tabernacles and there are various elements of human intrigue on the way: Saul leaves Ahinoam behind as punishment; Eliab thought he was going, but Joab takes him on a mission (but then they manage to make it anyway); Saul is trying to persuade Samuel to re-legitimise him, even trying to get Samuel's wife on his side; David's men, including Uriah, are a bit unsure whether he is really a leader they can follow.

Biblical love triangle

What I wanted to explore a bit more was the love triangle between Mychal, David and Merab, which twists and turns throughout the episode, but, crucially, without ever really getting very interesting. Indeed, while I use the term "love triangle", perhaps a better – albeit less enticing – way to describe it might be as a strategic-marriage triangle. While Mychal and David certainly love each other, David is not at all interested in Merab, and she is only interested in him because she believes he is likely to be the best option for her future.

The problem is that, from a dramatic point of view, this makes things all a little bit dull. Typically, love-triangles are introduced to bring drama and interest into the story, with tension and passion all round. Boundaries are crossed, kisses (and perhaps more) happen, that really shouldn't have happened, lovers/friends are betrayed.

In contrast, House of David's love triangle has some hurt feelings, but it's devoid of any kind of real passion. And the fact that much of the audience will know that Mychal will eventually get to marry David, also doesn't help generate narrative tension. 

Biblical productions (indeed all ancient historical adaptations) tend to lie on a continuum between "the past is another country" and "we're not too different you and I". The programme-makers have to make the story relatable in someway to their audience, but at the same time they know if they modernise things too then far historians and (with Bible films, church-goers) will object. The degree to which a production sits along that continuum varies, though some programme makers opt for doing something that's neither historical, nor very easy to relate to.

House of David's strategic-marriage triangle is a classic example of this. On the one hand everyone "knows" that sons and daughters of kings/tribal leaders were married off to build alliances (although the degree to which this is true is up for debate). But House of David is already so invested in the 'historical' idea that it's Mychal's father who gets to choose whom his daughters marry, that it's not really that unpalatable to us when he picks Merab to marry David, rather than Mychal.

So, while Mychal is annoyed at her sister, it never really feels much more than a sisterly spat that will soon be resolved. Mychal may be put out by her sister gaining approval from their father to marry David, but the show is so committed to this framework that you imagine she can also sympathise with Merab. As this is far outside of the typical audience member's experience (where people tend to marry for love) its attempts at historical context have detracted from its "relatability". 

However, on the "historical" side of the continuum there are also problems. The historical David, at least the one from the pages of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and Psalms, was passionate and hot-blooded. More to the point, he was not – by any stretch of the imagination – a one-woman-kinda-guy. Not only did he have at least eight wives, but his lack of scruples in taking a woman he saw from his palace and having her brought into his bedroom, suggests this was probably not the only time this happened (just the only time he got caught). 

But the David from House of David isn't at all like this. There was some initial chemistry in season 1 between David and Mychal, but this seems to have evaporated. David does seem to love Mychal, but their relationship is so oddly pure and chaste. They want to be married, but neither seems to desire sexual intimacy (even delaying it for marriage, or whatever). And Merab doesn't even seem attracted to David, she just sees him as having good prospects.  

Much of this derives from the specifically Christian way the showrunners read David, that is through the lens of Jesus and the New Testament. Three related strands stand out in particular. Firstly David is seen as Jesus' ancestor (see the genealogies in Matt 1 and Luke 3). Secondly, David is seen as a man "after God's own heart" (Acts13:22 citing 1 Sam 13) which tends to be read as about purity of character, even though that doesn't seem to be the focus of either Testament's original use of it. Thirdly, David is seen as a "type" for Christ, that is a foreshadowing, a point of comparison.

Its easy, then, to comprehend why this leads to a specific reading of David: no-one want to think of one's God (i.e. Jesus) being both descended from and similar in character to a polygamist rapist, least of all within evangelical circles where purity culture still holds sway. Therefore, David and Mychal are presented as model teenagers: beautiful, attracted to one another, respectful of the patriarchy, and (presumably) saving sex for marriage.

The problem, then, is that this is not only stretches historical credibility, but is also hard to relate to. Even the teens who buy into the idea of purity culture still typically desire sexual intimacy, they just ascribe to waiting until married. Effectively, then, House of David has taken a character who seems like exactly the kind of person to be involved in a love triangle, and created a scenario where he is indeed the centre of two sisters' attentions, but then contrived to make it oddly lack in passion and desire. You don't have to enjoy onscreen nudity to find its lack of sexual tension dull.

Same issue, different approach?

It's interesting, then, that in this same episode we also get a glimpse into sexual desire after marriage in the lives of Israel's early royals. Mychal and Merab's brother Eshbaal has married Dina, partly out of duty and partly for attraction, but she has never really reciprocated and only agreed to marry him in the previous episode "on condition she doesn't bear him an heir or have to pretend to love him".

Despite knowing this, Eshbaal tries to seduce her. This is hardly surprising for a character who has been set up as the opposite to David. Eventually the two will become rival heirs to Saul's throne and warring kings. David will triumph, but I guess there's a need to contrast him to Eshbaal, so it seems fair when David wins. So Eshbaal tends to be a little erratic, passionate and wayward, even spending some time with the Philistines after an argument with his father Saul.

Eshbaal reneging on his deal cuts no ice with Dina, who pulls a knife on him. When he complains "you'd rather ride a horse than have my child" she answers back. 

"Than have any man's child. So much pain and suffering, a swollen belly, the risk of death! For what? A moment of pleasure?"

On the one hand this is clever way to deal with the fact that Eshbaal (who is admittedly hardly mentioned in the genealogies in 1 Chron 8:33-36; 9:39-42) is never ascribed any children – unusual for a one-time king of Israel, even if the Chronicler tries to air-brush him out of the story – particularly as giving him children might raise issues around succession when he dies.

Yet at the same time Dina's words being delivered in such close proximity to the Mychal-David-Merab relationship reaching its apex read like they could be seeking to reinforce a similar message to anyone tempted to spurn David and Mychal's example. Words like "pain and suffering, a swollen belly, the risk of death! For what? A moment of pleasure?" feel like they are straight from the pages of a leaflet advocating abstinence as a form of birth control.

That said, I quite like Dina's general takes-no-crap attitude. Perhaps that's intentional, a way of catering to cynics like me, giving us a vaguely feminist character to cheer for.

===========
I was going to end this saying "No sex please, we're bronze-aged Levantine princesses", but I imagine the reference to the early 1970s British comedy film No Sex Please, We're British,  starring Ronnie Corbett will be lost to most who didn't grow up watching early evening TV in 1980s Britain.