Slaves of Babylon (1953)

Despite having been the subject of some of the very earliest Bible films, the various stories from the Book of Daniel rather fell from favour, to the extent that Slaves of Babylon is the only feature length take on one of the Israel's most iconic prophets (barring a handful of operas and musicals). Even on this occasion the filmmakers didn't take a huge amount of interest in the biblical subject matter and instead shift the focus to a fictional character called Nahum (Richard Conte). Nahum is one of the more rebellious Jewish slaves in post-exilic Babylon and so, after a couple of early skirmishes with the Babylonian authorities, Daniel sends to convey God's message to Cyrus (Terry Kilburn).

By this stage Daniel (Jewish actor Maurice Schwartz who would also feature in Salome in the same year) is now getting on in years and perhaps, given the filmmakers were clearly happy to use creative licence with the text, it might have been better to have been more relaxed on this point and create an all round action hero than to introduce a whole new character who inevitably steals the show. Nahum's mission is to find Cyrus who at this point is still just a shepherd, convince him of his divine mandate, teach him in the art of becoming a king, manage his campaign to make him and lead his attack on Babylon.

Various obstacles stand in Cyrus's way, not least and attempted assassination at the hands of a exotic dancer played by future Catwoman Julie Newmar who uses her feline charms to attempt to take Cyrus' life. It's a plan that not even Newmar's most famous role would have dared to pull off and is thwarted by the ever alert Nahum. Cyrus does seem to have an eye for the ladies though and his obsession with Linda Christian's princess does rather distract him from the task at hand.

Interspersed with this main plot are various stories from the early part of the Book of Daniel, his night, unharmed in the lion's den; Nebuchadnezzar's madness resulting in him eating grass; and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego being saved from the flames of the furnace. And of course there's the pivotal moment where Belshazzar's feast is interrupted by a giant hand writing "Mene, mene, tekel upharsin" on the walls of the banquet hall to prophesy his downfall. The special effects leave something to be desired - this latter scene relying on broadly the same technique (projection) as Pathé's Le Festin de Balthazar from 1905).

One of the episodes from the Book of Daniel that the film does leave out is the story about how Daniel and his colleagues choose not to eat the Babylonian's food, opting instead for a diet based largely on vegetables. It's not a story rich in dramatic potential, but it does really set Daniel and his friends apart from modern Christians. The film's costume design does place a very prominent Star of David across Daniel's chest, but otherwise Daniel is not particularly Jewish (as opposed to proto-Christian). But then also missing is the incident where Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a statue and none of his advisers can decipher it. None, that is, except, Daniel. It's perhaps not surprising that the second half of the Book of Daniel - the apocalyptic part - is absent, but this first omission does rather strip him of the gift that caused him to rise to prominence in the first place - the gift of interpreting dreams.

Whilst Slaves of Babylon was the product of a major studio (Columbia) it's fairly low budget and it shows. None of the male stars have any charisma, though Christian and Newmar do make up for the deficit to some extent, and whilst the plot adds a little excitement and allows a more tangential exploration of the story, it ends up compressing both stories so much that neither retains that much interest.

The Canon in the Early Silent Era pt.1

At the end of last year I started a series looking at how the idea of "canon" relates to the Bible on Film. There's not been much on it recently maybe because I decided that to write on the subject with any authority I needed to do some proper research and produce the fullest list possible of filmed version of the Bible so that I could do some analysis on them. That in itself has become a project in and of itself and I'm hoping to write more about that soon. For now however the logical place from where to continue the series is at the beginining, in that earliest part of the silent period I discussed in the previous post in this series.

In the period up to the end of 1915 (prior to the release of D.W. Griffith's Intolerance) at least 114 films based on the Hebrew Bible were produced. From a quick glance of these, it seems all the usual suspects are present. Moses, David, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Samson all feature fairly prominently and there are also films about Joseph, Esther, Noah, Solomon and others who have consistently proved popular for filmmakers, preachers and Sunday School teachers alike.

But it's not long however before other far less usual names start to occur. In 1910, the year when perhaps more biblical films were in cinemas than at any other point in history, Gaumont released the fourth entry in their Les Sept Péchés Capitaux series, La Luxure which told the story of Susanna and the Elders (based on the deuterocanonical story of Susanna - Susanna/Daniel 13). This tale of attempted sexual coercion and false accusation is fairly dark for the period although it's not hard to imagine its message of the importance of female virtue might be something the filmmakers wished to stress.

The following year Gaumont released Fils de la Sunamite (1911, The Son of the Shunamite) directed by Louis Feuillade. This story, based on an episode from the life of Elisha, has less dramatic potential, but obviously a strong emotional element, and its appeal is based more on miraculous elements than the spectacular. Elisha's only other screen appearances are as a cartoon, from the Animated Stories from the Bible series, Elisha: Man of God (1994), Riding for a Fall, part of the Bugtime Adventures series and the subversive online animation Don't Dis Elisha from Extreme Bible Stories (which I discussed here).

Just as active in this period were Pathé Frères who released Athalie (1910, dir. Michel Carré) about queen Athaliah, the daughter/sister of King Ahab who seized the Jewish throne after Jehu's revolt (2 Kings 8 & 11). It's a fascinating story that contains more than enough drama to fill the film's 20 or so minutes, but which has, to my knowledge, only been attempted two other times in the entire history of biblical films - two sixties, made for TV, productions from France (1962, dir. Roger Kahane) and Italy (1964, dir. Mario Ferrero). The following year Pathé Frères produced a slightly more familiar Old Testament film - Jaël et Sisera (1911), one of the many biblical films directed by Henri Andréani in this period. This is, as far as I can tell, the only time the events of Judges 4 have found their way onto the screen and it's curious that even in this case, the story's usual leading lady - Deborah - is omitted.

In some ways it's surprising to find these stories covered at all - across all of film history there are only seven versions of these four stories. After this early silent period when we get these four treatments they were almost never covered again and that the stories are relatively obscure to modern believers and audiences.

In effect there are three measures:
1. How many times was the film adapted in this first era of cinema?
2. How many times was it covered subsequently?
3. How well known is it to modern believers/audiences?

These film versions of Athaliah, Elisha, Susanna and Jael/Deborah are notable because whilst they were covered in this early period, even then they might be considered one-offs. Furthermore, they score poorly on the last two measures. Other stories covered in this period however score more prominently in one of the other categories, but still lack a lot of coverage in the modern period.

One such story is the story of Jephthah. The tragic story of Jephthah's daughter was covered no less than four times in this earliest period (Vitagraph, Gaumont, Pathé and Warner), but has only had one subsequent adaption - Einat Kapach's Bat Yiftach [Jephtah's Daughter] (1996). It is similarly obscure to modern audiences, but this subsequent swerve to obscurity is made more surprising by its popularity within this period. Perhaps this is down the first film performing particularly well at the box office, but there is relatively little evidence to support such an assertion.

Another story to buck these trends is that of Judith. Arguably the most famous Hebrew Bible film in this era is D.W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia (1914), not least because its director was subsequently catapulted into controversy and stardom. However, by the time Griffith's version had arrived there had already been three other films produced about the story (from Italy, 1906; France, 1909, pictured above; and the UK, 1912). But whereas interest in films about Jephthah and his daughter had begun to peter out, Judith films continued to appear, albeit far more rarely than most other stories, and largely in Catholic countries, hence there was one other film in the silent era (dir.Negroni, 1928), at least seven television films from 1959-1969 as well as a few later entries in 1979, 1980 and 2007. More details about these films can be found here.

Whilst this story remains fairly obscure to modern audiences, particularly to those in Protestant churches/countries, there is one story that is well-known to modern audiences and was popular in the silent era and yet has hardly been adapted in subsequent periods: the stories around Daniel.

The first films about Daniel were the amongst the very first biblical films, the earliest being two from Pathé in 1905, Le Festin de Balthazar and Daniel dans la fosse aux lions. These were followed up by no less than seven other Daniel films in this earliest period (five of which were from Gaumont). All the more surprising then that following the last of these in 1913, it was not until 1953's Slaves of Babylon before the story was covered again and then another gap of 25 years before the story was covered again in the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series. So it's perhaps surprising that the story has see something of a revival in recent years, mainly due to animated, church-targeted, productions or adaptations of Verdi's opera "Nabucco".

What is also noticeable about films based on Daniel is the lack of a major production of the Daniel story. Slaves of Babylon is perhaps the highest profile, but even then, the Daniel story is somewhat in the background. Whilst this part of the biblical canon has been covered in film on a number of occasions, none of these have really entered into a (theoretical?) canon of Bible Films.

In the next parts of this series I'll look at New Testament portrayals in this period and at some of the reasons that might lie behind the findings above.

The Kingdom of Israel: Part 1

I'm trying to write a few comments on the key films about the Kingdom of Israel. In some ways it's fewer films than one might think - the kingdom starts with Saul, splits three kings later, and both the separate parts peter out. In terms of films there are very few films that pick the story up after the end of Solomon's rule. But on the other hand there have been a lot of films about David. Not as many as Moses and Jesus, but certainly too many to cover all of in detail in a briefing overview like this.

I think I'll take them in chronological order as that allows me to treat the separate parts of the story individually and where one production covers more than one part of the story (such as this year's The Bible) I can deal with the specific parts as they come up. Well I'll try it like that and see where it gets me.

The Start of the New Kingdom

Living Bible: Samuel, A Dedicated Man (1958), Il Messia (1975), One Night With the King (2006), The Bible (2013)

The Rise of David

David and Goliath (1908), Saul and David (1909), David and Saul (1911), Death of Saul (1913), Living Bible: David, A Young Hero (1958), David and Goliath (1960), Saul and David (1968), Story of David (1976), Greatest Heroes of the Bible: David and Goliath (1978), King David (1985), Testament: David and Saul (1996), Kings (2009), The Bible (2013).

David the King

David and Bathsheba (1951), Living Bible: David, A King of Israel (1958), Story of David (1976), King David (1985), The Bible Collection: David (1997), The Bible (2013).

Solomon the King

La Reine de Saba (1913), Living Bible: Solomon, A Man of Wisdom (1958), Solomon and Sheba (1959), Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Judgement of Solomon (1978), The Bible Collection: Solomon (1997).

The Divided Kingdom

Athaliah, Queen of Judah (1910), Green Pastures (1936), Sins of Jezebel (1953), Living Christ Series (1951), Living Bible: Elijah a Fearless Prophet (1958), Testament: Elijah (1996), Testament: Jonah (1996)

The Fall of Judah

Judith of Bethulia (1913), The Bible Collection: Jeremiah (1998), The Bible (2013)

I'm aware that I've left some out, not least the various other Judith films I've discussed recently, various peplum Goliath films, a few other silents, the odd cartoon, and a few very amateur projects. Nevertheless, this isn't a bad list, and I suspect I'll skip a few on this list for the sake of being something of significance about the others. Still, that's about 30 depending on whether you count different episodes of things like The Living Bible (1958) and The Bible (2013) separately, or just as one series together.

Elisha, God and the Bears

There's discussion amongst some of the other bibliobloggers about the story of Elisha and the She-Bears. Given that this is exactly the kind of story I'll be looking at in my Greenbelt talk "Biblical Horror Stories for Children" It was all started by David Ker who used the post as part of his Bad Boy Bible Studies series. The series viewpoint is that "Old Testament stories tell us more about humans than God. But that revelation comes in the context of a long trajectory of God’s dealings with humanity". I sort of agree with that, but the problems, for me at least, seem to come when Ker starts to apply them.

Essentially Ker holds that "The correlation of Elisha’s curse and the youth’s misfortune is purely coincidental." The problem is, for me at least, that whilst the author never states a connection outright, it is clearly implied by the plot requirements of the story. Firstly, as Ker actually states, the author "is establishing Elisha as the inheritor of Elijah’s power". But the source of this power is meant to be God. Secondly, if this event was interpretated as being purely coincidental, it's hard to see why it was included. Imagine if the bears hadn't taken action, would the story have merited a place in the Bible? Personally, I doubt it very much indeed. The Bible is history theologised. Coincidences are of no consequence. Thirdly, the specific mention of Yahweh's name (as opposed to merely saying that Elisha cursed them) prefigures that which is to come. Fourthly, and I concede I'm not best placed to state this, but my understanding was that in the mindset of the time, coincidences such as these simply didn't exist. God was responsible. To my mind, only those who start with the presupposition that the author couldn't possibly view God as responsible for such an horrendous act can conclude that.

Of course using the phrase "the author" raises the question of which author is intended? The person who witnessed the event? The first person to write it down? The person that wrote in the form we have in front of us? The book's final editor? Or all of those involved in the complex process of this story ending up in our Hebrew Bibles.

I first came across this thread on Doug Chaplin's Baldy, bad boys and the big bear: a strange Bible meme. Doug broadly agrees with Ker, although unlike Ker, he never states outright that the "correlation of Elisha’s curse and the youth’s misfortune is purely coincidental". Nevertheless, none of Doug's points of "methodological reflection" really cover the implicit suggestion that Elisha’s curse motivated God to send the bears to kill the boys." As I said in his comments

"It’s all very well saying “not everybody in the Bible is perfect or to be emulated” but when it’s implied that it’s God that does the killing then it’s another matter, surely? God’s action on Elisha’s behalf endorses, rather than opposes, his desire for vengance, which is why it’s such a troubling passage, for me at least."

I'm already regretting the use "it's all very well" which sounds Tom-Wrightily pompous and a little angry and shrill, but I can't edit the comment. Sorry Doug.

In Bad boys and big bad bears, Peter Kirk has a different approach. For him, Elisha "had within him the power and authority of God, with which he was able to pronounce a curse on the boys which was not mere words but had immediate effect. God answered it by sending the bears even though that was not a good thing." I think I find this answer a little more honest, but also a litle more troubling. In essence it says that God was responsible for killing the youths, even though he thought it was a bad thing. I suppose "responsible" is a bit of a slippery term. Kirk would presumably say that God delegated this power to Elisha, but Elisha abused it. I can see that point, though I'm a little unclear on how this power works (aren't we all?). The problem with it for me (assuming this never passes across God's desk prior to being actioned) is that this story is so consistent with other passages in the Hebrew Bible which portray God as the driving force for similarly brutal acts. Whilst I know chipping away at each difficult story in turn is a popular approach, after a while it just becomes clear that this is just an attempt to clear the Bible's name one step at a time.

Douglas Mangum adopts a similar position to Peter Kirk - the timing of the bear attack was not just coincidental. His explanation is slightly different however:

Rejecting or mocking the LORD's anointed (Elisha) was the same as rejecting or mocking Yahweh himself. That is the take-home point that I would use for a Sunday School class. Still, it is a bizarre story. I recommend you head over to read James McGrath's 11 different angles on this text. Here's my favorite.

Given that my Greenbelt talk will be looking at how unpleasant stories get taught more in children's groups than in grown-up church, the mention of Sunday School obviously stood out. Suffice to say I'm unlikley to send my kids to that particular class. That said, if you are seeking to justify this story then it seems to me that Mangum's take is the most coherrent linking this in to other places where God punishes people for mocking him. Three questions remain for me, however, firstly the proportionality of the response. 1 insult, 42 deaths seems a bit disproportionate I suppose. Secondly, exactly how proven is it that "rejecting or mocking the LORD's anointed (Elisha) was the same as rejecting or mocking Yahweh". It seems like a big assumption to me. Why did this not happen to Jesus, or today, or to Nehemiah? Finally, as is often the case with these passages, it's the inconsistency that is a problem. I guess I just touched on that, but why is this such an isolated example? Why doesn't it happen today.

Meanwhile, Tim Bulkeley sums up his theoretical sermon on it as "life is not fair, get over it!" in Watch out or the bears will get you!. He does apologise for the shortness of his response, but even so, seems to have overlooked the fact that the boys in question would not ever have the chance to get over it as they'd be dead.

As Bob MacDonald sheds some fascinating light on the language of the passage but leaves aside dealing with the actual question I'll move straight onto James McGrath's roundly praised response Bad Boy Bible Study. McGrath lists "11 semi-serious and not-so-serious approaches to the text that...are worth trying out".

My own response is to say that whilst the event was interpreted as an act of God, it was, in reality, a coincidence, the timing of which was so terrible that it stuck long in the minds of those who witnessed it, and was re-interpreted as an act of God as those who wrote and re-wrote it.

I guess most atheists would agree with that interpretation. The more agressive atheists out there would delight in citing this passage as evidence that the Bible is inconsistent, presents an angry vicious God and is therefore made up. But even though I sometime wonder if I should really be called a Christian agnostic, I find I can't accept the Godless explanation so readily.

For me the crucial point is that the Bible is inspired (though, as someone else in this discussion pointed out, it's not always inspirational), but that the story of God was revealed gradually from a starting point that was very far away from the truth. From an initial viewpoint whereby God was a localised deity, petty, fickle, venegeful, only on the side of his people and able to be bribed as to what to do, whereas, in reality, none of that uis true. It was a long drawn out process even to get to the point whereby Jesus could come and enough of it would stick, and the process of God's gradual self revelation is still going on.

In terms of this specific passage the lessons for us are different for the lessons for its original audience(s). For them it spoke of God's power, his faithfulness to people (I doubt the victim's side of things would have crossed their minds), that he listens, that he is active and so on. And many of those things we can take away from it as well.

For us though, aside from is being another small piece of a large jigsaw, there is something significant about the fact that the final version of the text omits the link between the curse and the bears' action. Not because in doing so it gets God off the hook - it doesn't and there are many other places in scripture where that link is made explicit - but because it's a gap in the text which God's light shines through. The text fails to make the crucial connection when, by it's own rules, it really should have. It's useful historical evidence of the fact that these people's knowledge of God was sorely incomplete, and indeed, it's also a reminder of the fact.

That's doubtless a bit woolly, but I guess I see God's revelation as being very gradual and limited by what is, in my mind, a flawed humanly produced (but God inspiured text).

To keep this relevant to Bible films, if you've not seen Don't Dis Elisha from Extreme Bible Stories, then you really should. It's very South Parkian, and all the better for it in my opinion.

Oh an my Greenbelt talk will be 6pm on Sunday 30th August in the YMCA tent.

FaithArts on Kings

Modernised King David drama Kings returned to screens in the US recentley, and has also started airing in Ireland. Brendan O'Regan of irish site FaithArts has shared a few of his thoughts. His posts aren't given individual URLs so you may have to scroll down to find them.

There was a bit of a paucity of comment on this programme from those versed in biblical studies so it's good to read Brendan's comments, and I believe that there will be more to follow. Looking forward to it.

Sadly, I've not managed to find any indication that Kings is to broadcast in the UK soon.

Jeremiah Notes on Scene Guide

I was a little pushed for time on Friday when I posted a scene guide for Jeremiah, so I postponed writing a few notes on it until today.

The first thing to say is that whilst the vast majority of the material is drawn from the book Jeremiah, there are a few places where the film draws on parts of 2 Kings to fill in the historical gaps.

It's also interesting to note that most of the material taken from Jeremiah, aside from the opening, is taken from chapters 20-30. There's not a single reference from chapters 40-49 (where Jeremiah is mainly cursing the other nations), and only one from 10-19 (Jer 16:1-4). This passage - where Jeremiah is told not to take a wife - and Jer 34:8-11 - where Mattaniah frees the slaves before reversing the decision some time later - are used to insert the film's only real extra-biblical sub-plot where Jeremiah falls in love. This is actually a fairly common device employed by The Bible Collection's films, and in some of the other cases the picture is severely derailed as a result. Here the filmmakers manage to keep it under control so it forms interesting speculation that highlights Jeremiah's sad and introspective character.

Working out this scene guide does give me more of a feel for just how jumbled the book's chronology is. Of course some of this is down to the filmmakers rather than the source material, but material from the siege of Jerusalem, for example, is really spread around in such a way as to make me wonder why. Is there a purpose to this ordering, or was this just not considered important or in any way useful?Overall I think the film does a great job of summarising Jeremiah and putting him in his historical context, and it manages to include most of the book's famous passages. One surprising omission, however, is the story of Jeremiah at the potter's house and the attached sayings (Jer 18:1–23). The film does include the vision of the upturned pot, and perhaps the writers thought that too many pot symbols might be confusing. Even so, I would have thought the potter's house passage would have been the one to be selected.

There are a few things I noticed about the call of Jeremiah. Firstly, the film enhances Jeremiah's call with elements from the call of Isaiah (Is 6). In the book of Jeremiah, there's no mention of a vision, and God touching Jeremiah's lips appears to be more of a metaphor than anything else. We're also not told where this call took place. In the film, however, Jeremiah also sees a vision, twice, and on both occasions it occurs in the temple. It's interesting that the second of these quotes part of Jer 5:14 "I have put my words in your mouth", but cuts off before the use of the word "fire". Instead this element is represented visually as part of Jeremiah's call.

There is actually a further part of Jeremiah's call - the vision of the almond tree, but I noticed that the interpretation of this vision alters some of the details of this vision. The text simply says that the sign means that God is "watching to see that my word is fulfilled". But the film expands this to say "as this tree is in a hurry to sprout, so God is in a hurry to carry out his work".

Lastly, I'm going to make a separate post another day to look at the way that the Jeremiah of this film prefigures Jesus, particularly the Jesus from the later film in the same series.

Jeremiah - Scene Guide

I've been working away on a scene guide for the Bible Collection's Jeremiah ever since I re-watched it a couple of months ago. Of all the scene guides that I have done to date, this has certainly been the most difficult to put together. Not only is Jeremiah the Bible's longest book (based on number of words), but it's chronology becomes increasingly unlinear the closer you look. Furthermore, an odd verse can carry a great deal of narrative weight, but trying to find it, even with the wonders of the internet, can be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As well as my guide that follows below, I would also like to recommend an excellent outline of this film by Neil MacQueen. MacQueen's outline gives timings and descriptions rather than verses like my own, so the two complement each other quite well.

Book of the Law Found - (2 Kings 22)
Jeremiah's ancestry - (Jer 1:1)
Josiah's Passover - (2 Kings 23:21-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Josiah enters Jerusalem]
Call of Jeremiah - (Jer 1:4-10)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Nebuchadnezzar crowned]
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's Girlfriend]
Prophecy of the Almond Tree - (Jer 1:11-12)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah's first sacrifice]
Prophetic vision/2nd call - (Jer 4:22; 5:28-29, 14)
Jeremiah prophesies at the temple - (Jer 7:1-11)
Jeremiah beaten - (Jer 20:1-2)
Overturned pot - (Jer 1:13-19)
Jeremiah told not to take a wife - (Jer 16:1-4) (complains)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Jeremiah meets Baruch]
Prophecy about fall of Jerusalem - (Jer 22:1-5)
King tears and burns the scroll. - (Jer 36:1–24)
Jermiah asks Baruch to re-write scroll - (Jer 36:28)
Babylon invades Jerusalem - (2 Kings 24:1-12)
Temple stripping & deportation - (2 Kings 24:13-17, Jer 27:19-20)
Jeremiah the ox-yoke and Hananiah - (Jer 27:1-28:17)
Jeremiah imprisoned in courtyard - (Jer 32:1-3; 36:31)
Jeremiah calls for surrender - (Jer 21:1-9)
Mattaniah frees the slaves - (Jer 34:8-10)
Jeremiah put in prison - (Jer 37:11–16)
Mattaniah unfrees the slaves - (Jer 34:11)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - Judith killed]
Jeremiah's complaint - (Jer 20:7-9)
Jerusalem under siege - (Jer 52:1-6)
Mattaniah seeks God's word - (Jer 37:17-20)
Word against Jerusalem - (Jer 21:10)
Officials speak against Jeremiah - (Jer 38:4-5)
Promise of Return - (Jer 32:37-40)
Jeremiah calls again for surrender - (Jer 20:4, 38:17-20)
Jeremiah thrown in a cistern - (Jer 38:6)
Ebed Melech frees Jeremiah - (Jer 38:7:13; 39:15-18*)
Jeremiah confronts Mattaniah - (Jer 23:1-2, 38:17-21)
Jeremiah buys a field - (Jer 32:6-15)
Babylon capture Jerusalem - (Jer 39:1-3, 52:6-7)
Mattaniah captured fleeing - (Jer 39:4-5, 52:7-9)
Mattaniah's sons killed, blinded - (Jer 39:5-7, 52:10-11)
Jeremiah freed - (Jer 39:11-12)
Jerusalem destroyed - (Jer 39:8-10)
God promises to rebuild the temple and the people's hearts - (Jer 31)

Notes
I've chosed to call Jeremiah's primary royal opponent by his original name Mattaniah, rather than the name Zedekiah which was given to him by Nebuchadnezzar as this is what the film calls him throughout. Interestingly scripture mainly calls him Zedekiah.

I have a few more points that I'd like to make on this, but I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll return to this task next week.

Edit: This can now be found here.

Kings Broadcast Dates Announced

According to the official website for NBC's Kings (see my previous posts), the 2 hour pilot will broadcast on March 19th 9pm/ET. There's also a teaser trailer - although it doesn't feature any footage from the show. There's also a somewhat novel promotional feature - a fake news website from the programme's parallel world, which itself leads onto a history of "the Royal Kingdom". It's here where we finally get to see a few shots from the series itself and there's a bit of background information as well.

I'll be keeping an eye on the site over the next couple of months, and hopefully there will be an opportunity for me to review it when we come to the middle of March.

Comic Con on Kings

Peter Chattaway has done a piece on NBC's Kings at the recent Comic Con convention in San Diego. Pick of pile is a video of the leading cast and crew discussing the pilot. He also links to Tara Bennett's interview with series creator Michael Green and a piece by Liz Shannon Miller.

Script Reviews for Kings (NBC)

David W. Dunlap/New York Times

There are a few bits and pieces to report on the forthcoming NBC drama Kings. Firstly NBC's latest schedule has the show lined up for the 10pm Sunday slot in Winter 2009. It also has it lined up for possible "encores" next summer. What's unclear is how long Kings' initial broadcast will be. Reuters are claiming that the whilst this was originally just a two-hour pilot, "NBC decided to proceed with a full series order after executives saw (some) footage".

There are also two script reviews by industry insiders Brian Ford Sullivan and James Hibberd. Sullivan is left "confused" by the programme's alternative universe, although he does admire its ambition. Hibberd is more positive, although rightly cautious until he's seen what the director does with the script.

Lastly, David Dunlap reports on the filming of a scene incorporating the Columbus Monument.

Thoughts on Jeremiah (1998)

I got an email asking me for my thoughts on The Bible Collection's Jeremiah (1998) so I thought I may as well post them here so anyone else who's interested could read them as well. First off, I must admit that it's been a while since I watched this film in its entirety, so I reserve the right to change my mind about it when next I watch it.

Overall this is one of my favourite entries in the Bible Collection series. This may be partly due to the fact that it was one of the first in the series I watched and therefore things like the (seemingly) obligatory introduction of a love interest didn't bother me to the same extent as it did 10 or so films later.

The other main reason I liked it was far more positive. Prior to watching it I knew very little about Jeremiah, and considered his work rather dull. I believe that it's the longest book in the Bible if you count the number of words rather than the number of chapters. And most of it is fairly miserable prophecies. There's the odd high point - lots of people love to quote 29:11 (usually out of context) - but it's a hard book to really get into both because of it's size and it's make up. It's the biblical studies equivalent of exploring Russia.That said, what the film did for me was draw my attention to just how much narrative there is in the book; to make the links between Jeremiah and the other bits of the Old Testament that I was more familiar with; and to give me the broader context in which to read Jeremiah's prophecies. Most of the information was already there, but now I could see how it fitted together - perhaps the equivalent of being given a good map of Russia, or even a Lonely Planet guide or something.

There are a few memorable scenes in the film. One image that stands out is the discovery of the lost book of the law in the days of Josiah. This is shot from both inside and outside the sealed compartment which it has been stored in all these years. There's some question as to whether this passage should be taken as literally as the film takes it, but it's a memorable interpretation nevertheless. The PoV shot taken from inside the compartment almost makes the lost scroll a character in itself. It draws attention to the scroll's story, lost and neglected for years and now finally liberated.Another sequence that sticks in the mind is the one in which Jeremiah hears God's call. This is shown as a flashback if I recall correctly, and the child actor employed in the role of young Jeremiah does a decent job.

I mentioned the love interest above, but I seem to recall a scene where Jeremiah and his girlfriend are separated which is fairly powerful. It I remember rightly this spurs Jeremiah on to follow God's call more strongly. It's all extra-biblical of course, but it's an interesting hypothetical character motivation, and adds to the sense of melancholy that comes through so powerfully from Jeremiah's writings.Other memorable moments include those where Oliver Reed's General Safan throws Jeremiah in a hole, where Jeremiah prophecies with a yolk around his neck and the scene where his prophetic writings are thrown into the fire bit by bit. The film draws to a close around the time of the exile to Babylon under Zedekiah / Mattaniah and these scenes are also fairly striking.

There are a few other places that anyone wanting to read more about this film should check. Firstly the Prayer Foundation have a review featuring a few extra photos. There's also a few comments by Peter Chattaway at Canadian Christianity. Lastly there is some footage of the film available at Video Detective - it's the trailer for a 4 film set which also includes Esther, Solomon and Genesis: Creation and Flood.

Update on NBC's Kings

NBC has released more details of its autumn / fall schedule including a little bit more about Kings. The modernised version the story of David will be shown in prime time and is described by the NBC website as being a "one hour special". There's also the following plot outline which expands on the Variety piece I discussed last month.

HOPE LIES IN BRAVERY.

Kings is an inspiring exploration of the timeless David vs. Goliath struggle. The show is set in a modern metropolis under siege, where the fighting has gone on for too long and cost far too many lives. When David Shepherd, a brave young soldier, rescues the king's son from enemy territory, he sets events in motion that will finally bring peace. Suddenly, David is thrust into the limelight, earning the affections of women - including the king's daughter. When he's promoted to Captain, he becomes the reluctant poster boy for hope. But for David, the line between his allies and enemies will blur as the power players in the kingdom go to great lengths to see him fall.

From the director of the blockbuster movie I Am Legend comes the ultimate story of David vs. Goliath, and there's no telling who will win.

Pictured above are McShane who'll play King Silas, Christopher Egan as David, and Sebastian Stan as Jack. I imagine Jack is the aforementioned son of King Silas, which is presumably the equivalent of Jonathan. If so, I wonder whether the series will explore the theory that David and Jonathan were lovers. I never know which of the major US stations is the conservative BBC1 equivalent, and which is the more radical Channel 4 equivalent.

More 2 Kings Films

Back in February, I made two posts discussing films that are based on material from 2 Kings. Shortly afterwards I decided to go ahead and order Sins of Jezebel to see what exactly it covered. I figured it might make an interesting post if nothing else. In the meantime, WitlessD found out some details about some, more obscure, films that are on parts of Kings, and emailed me the details, and Peter Chattaway also discovered a film due for release that might also touch on this material.

Unfortunately I decided to delay posting more until Sins of Jezebel, and, sadly, it didn't arrive until yesterday. Furthermore, having had a quick scan it appears it's very much based on Elijah and 1 Kings rather than the second part of the book. So I probably should have posted this a month or two ago, but better late than never I suppose.

The first film is a five part mini-series from Brazil called O Desafio de Elias (The Challenge of Elijah) by Rede Record and VMT Produções. It was directed by Luiz Antônio Piá based on Yves Dumont's screenplay. It aired on 5 consecutive nights on Brazilian TV back in 1997 (22-26 December). Guilherme Linhares played Elijah, Adriana Lessa (pictured above) as Ninra, Othon Bastos as Ahab and Sônia Lima as Jezebel (pictured below). WitlessD also sent me a description which I've had translated.

The struggle of the prophet Elijah for the word of the God of Israel. It's around the year 850 BC and Elijah antagonizes King Ahab. Ahab is married to the flirtatious Jezabel, and influenced by the queen's construction of a temple to the false god Baal

A year later Lima and the same producers, director and writer created a 10 part Esther mini-series A História de Ester.

Then there have been two versions of Racine's 1691 play 'Athalie' (based on the story of the idolatrous Athaliah from 2 Kings 8&11 / 2 Chronicles 22&23). The first version, Athaliah, Queen of Judah, was filmed by Pathé Frères in 1910 and a couple of reviews of it remain to this day. Firstly an issue of The Bioscope dated 25 August 1910 (p.29):

Athaliah, Queen of Judah, has gained the throne by the destruction of all the royal princes. Unknown to her, a tiny babe has been saved by Jehoiada, the priest, and brought up by him in the Temple of Jerusalem. Seven years pass and the people, weary of the tyranny of their cruel Queen, plead to God for a miracle in the form of the coming of a son of David.

Athahiah has become a worshipper of Baal, and two of the priests of Baal are seen endeavoring to persuade her to destroy the Sacred Temple. But Athaliah dismisses her advisers and falls a prey to remorse and visions in which Joash, the new child king, appears to her. Athaliah resolves to satisfy herself as to the truth of the rumors of the existence of a royal prince. She goes to the Temple and finds herself within its sacred walls at the moment a sacrifice is to be made. Jehoiada drives her out, and the Queen decides to question Joash. Joash is unable to answer her questions, but his features convince Athaliah, and she decides that she must regain her power by arms.

In the next scene we see he leading her warriors to the assault of the great Temple. She demands admittance, and the High Priest, allows her to enter alone. He has a curtain drawn aside and Athaliah sees before her the new King, seated on a throne, and surrounded by his adherents. She springs forward, but at the cry of the priest, hidden soldiers rush forward and force her backwards out of the Temple. Outside the people have gathered to acclaim the new ruler promised them, and Athaliah cries out for their allegiance. Their only reply is silence, which changes into cries of joy as Joash appears before the Temple, and as the queen rushes forward a thrust from a spear ends her life.

The film is well staged, and carefully treated, and the numerous sub-titles clearly explain the story.

The other review was written by Georges Fagot for the 8th October 1910 edition of Ciné-Joumal, (No 111). Again this is a translation:

We have just seen the most perfect film that has, so far, been presented by cinematography, Athalie, directed and adapted by Mr. Michel Carré one of the most famous authors of the SCAGL ... An ingenious adapter and clever director Mr. Michel Carré was well qualified to be the chef-d’ceuvre-Racine, as illustrated by this film version from La Série d’Art Pathé Frères (original name for Pathé Frères

Shooting began on 11 May 1910 and the film was released in Paris on 7th October 1910. The film was 410m/1352ft [361color].

The second, Atalia, was an Italian TV version transmitted on RAI 2 in 1964. The cast included Lilla Brignone (Athaliah) and Roberto Chevalier (Jehoash). It was directed by Mario Ferrero, and aired on RAI2 on the 13th May 1964 (my birthday). Whilst it looks lie a few copies of the 1910 film remain the 1964 version was apparently wiped just a year after its release.Finally, Will Smith is due to star in The Last Pharaoh - which is actually going to be about Taharqa the last Pharaoh of the 25th Dynasty rather than Cleopatra (because that would be really strange). And, as Peter Chattaway points out, that might feature an appearance from Hezekiah and the events of 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37

There is an interesting connection between Taharqa and the biblical history of this period. Scholars, it seems, have said that Taharqa may be the same person who is referred to in II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 as "Tirhakah, the Cushite king of Egypt" -- a figure who is mentioned simply because he was "marching out to fight" against the Assyrian king Sennacherib while Sennacherib was laying siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC.

Peter also lists some problems with that theory and wonders how the film may treat the different accounts in the Greek / biblical history (if it includes the incident at all).

This post has taken me so long I've now not got enough time to sit and watch Sins of Jezebel. Oh well...

Egan, McShane Head Kings Cast

I mentioned back in November that NBC were producing a modern day version of the life of David called Kings. Well Variety has just announced a couple of pieces of casting: Christopher Egan (Home and Away) will play David whilst Ian McShane (Lovejoy, Deadwood) will play the role of "the monarch". I'm guessing McShane's role will be akin to that of Saul, but it's also possible his role is the modern day equivalent of Achish or Maoch. Come to think of it he could also be playing David later in life. Time will tell I guess. McShane is, of course, no stranger to the Biblical TV drama having played Judas in 1977's Jesus of Nazareth and 1985's A.D. Anno Domini.

The Variety piece also clears up one other thing: This is not the David production that J. Michael Straczynski is writing. Michael Green (Heroes) is cited as the writer for this one.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for spotting the story.

2 Kings Redux

Last Friday I wrote about seven films that have covered the events of 2 Kings in preparation for the 12th session of my course Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years. Even as I was writing, I had a vague recollection that some Jesus film or other started with a flashback from 2 Kings but I couldn't quite remember it.

It turns out that the film I was thinking of was the opening entry in the Living Christ Series which spends nearly ten minutes retelling the story of Isaiah, Hezekiah and the Israelites by way of introducing the prophet who would foretell Jesus's birth.

As with the rest of this series the production values are very low, and the acting is hilariously poor in places, but it does give a rare treatment to this story. The series was generally fairly straight with its adaptation and this episode was no exception.A couple of things in this film caught my attention. Firstly, one of the film's opening images is of this map, dated 701 BC. As the narrator describes the Assyrian empire's march across the region he lists Sidon, Tyre, Ashdod, Moab and Edom, but, bizarrely, Samaria is omitted.

The film also adds a few other educational comments from the narrator such as the detail that the Assyrians attached knives to their wheels and so on.

In a similar vein the opening monologue also contains the shot below of a statue similar to the Assyrian Winged Bull that was originally part of Sargon II's palace, but is now in the British Museum. However, the film doesn't make any reference to the Taylor prism which tells the same story but from Sennacherib's perspective.I also showed the opening scene from the Bible Collection's Jeremiah where Josiah's men find the book of the law. It's an interesting sequence for two reasons, firstly because, according to some scholars, this "discovery" may never have happened, and secondly because it treats the scroll itself as almost human, using a point of view shot to give it's perspective on being discovered.

Films About 2 Kings

Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years has got as far as 2 Kings now, and whilst I only show a film clip occasionally, I do like to find a still which I can use for the session's main image. This month, however, has been a bit of a challenge as it appears so few films have been made about events in 2 Kings.

The most popular story - from a filmmaking point of view at least - is that of Elijah. Technically, most of Elijah's story falls within 1 Kings, but volume 2 does contain the closing scenes from his ministry, most notably him being taken up to heaven. But films about Elijah are rare: I'm only aware of three which cover events in 2 Kings and only one of those is a feature length film.

Technically, the first of these isn't even really a film about Elijah, rather it's about his nemesis Jezebel. I've never actually seen Sins of Jezebel (1953), but seems to cover most of the events ascribed to her in the Bible, from her appearance as Ahab's wife in 1 Kings 16, through to her death at the hand of Jehu in 2 Kings 9. I suspect it takes the principles of the sex, sword and sandal epics to an extreme, but one of the commentators at IMDb describes it as a "fairly straightforward retelling of the Bible story". Production values, however are reported to be low, but then it was filmed in 3 days on only a $100,000 dollar budget.By far the best that I've seen is the Elijah entry in the Testament: Bible in Animation series. It's hand drawn, but highly stylised, animation accompanied by operatic sound courtesy of Bryn Terfel, and the BBC National Orchestra / Chorus of Wales. I've discussed this film before, but I'm struck on this occasion of how Elijah reminds me of a younger Brian Blessed.

The other Elijah film, which I have also discussed before is Elijah, a Fearless Prophet from the Living Bible series. Both these Elijah films include his dramatic ascension to heaven, but omit the other main story from 2 Kings where Elijah condemns Ahaziah. I also yet to see Elijah and the Widow of Zarephath (1996), but I suspect from what I've read that it doesn't go as far as 2 Kings. (Neither does the Elijah excerpt from Friends and Heroes FWIW)

Elijah's servant and successor Elishah has faired even worse. Whilst he does get a bit part on those Elijah films, there's only two "films" where he plays a more leading role. The first is The Son of the Shunamite from way back in 1911. It's described as a classic horror film, where Elisha raises the widow's son.There's also a more recent cartoon which covers the story of Elisha and Naaman. Riding for a Fall is part of the Bugtime Adventures series. As far as I'm aware it's the only version of Naaman's story. Quite where the bugs fit in is, at present, beyond me.

However, it's the middle part of Kings where there is a real paucity of film coverage. As far as I'm aware there isn't a single film which so much as touches on anything between the end of Elisha's ministry and the beginning of the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. Because that incident was so significant it spills over into other stories, particular those of Jeremiah and Daniel, and so there are a couple of films which deal with these events.Slaves of Babylon was released in 1953, the same year as Sins of Jezebel, which, given the general shortage of films touching on 2 Kings, is quite surprising. It starred Richard Conte and Linda Christian as two fictional characters Nahum and Princess Panthea. The most well known 'biblical' character is Daniel who doesn't actually feature in 2 Kings. I now realise that I missed this film out of my recent look at films about Daniel. For those who are interested there are a good number of photos from this film available here with some original pictures and a poster also available on eBay at the moment.

Finally there's Jeremiah from The Bible Collection which is where I got the heading image (and the one I ended up using). I've been an admirer of this film ever since I first saw it. Whilst the Bible Collection's insistence on bringing a romance element into every story they handle is present here as well, it's less of a distraction, and doesn't detract from the fine work by Patrick Dempsey in the lead role. It's main achievement is highlighting sufficient narrative to make an interesting plot, whilst including enough prophecy to make the exercise as a whole worthwhile. In contrast to Slaves of Babylon, however, the fall of Jerusalem occurs at the end of the film rather than at the start.

NBC to Modernise King David Working Title Kings

I'm a bit pushed for time today, but just got time to post this one up. According to Variety, NBC are producing a modern re-telling of the story of King David, with the working title Kings.

As Peter Chattaway notes, NBC are owned by the same company who owns Universal studios who have themselves got J. Michael Straczynski to write the script for a new David film which may, or may not be the one which Ralph Winter is producing.

Elijah, A Fearless Prophet

Having reviewed the Testament - Bible in Animation version of Elijah a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to have a look at 1958's Elijah, A Fearless Prophet.

Introduction to Elijah & Ahab - (1 Kings 16:29-34)
Elijah predicts drought - (1 Kings 17:1)
Elijah and the Ravens - (1 Kings 17:2-6)
Elijah and Widow of Zarephath - (1 Kings 17:7-24)
Elijah and Prophets of Baal - (1 Kings 18:1-2, 16-40)
End of the Drought - (1 Kings 18:45-46)
Elijah on the mountain - (1 Kings 19:1-18)
Elijah calls Elishah - (1 Kings 19:19-21)
Elijah taken to Heaven - (2 Kings 2:1-14)

Notes
The first thing to note is how similar the scene selection is to the Testament version. This is largely because the biblical material on Elijah is fairly small. But it is also noticeable that both exclude the incident with Obadiah, both exclude the incident where Elijah sends his servant to search for the clouds, both omit Elijah's marathon run ahead of Ahab's chariot, and both omit Fire from heaven burning two of Ahaziah's captains. Yet neither show Jezebel or Ahab's deaths (1 Kings 21-22, 2 Kings 9)

These exclusions are fairly significant in two ways. Firstly, they give Elijah the human qualities that are so central to his character. Elijah's hopes for the ending of the drought as he yearns for even the smallest indicator of its end. Elijah's breakdown and his complaints in 1 Kings 19:4&10 that he is the only prophet of God left, should be seen in this context. Firstly, Obadiah has already told Elijah that he has saved many prophets. Secondly, Elijah hits this low, not only after a major spiritual confrontation, but also following a run from Carmel to Jezreel (which, I believe, is about 20 miles), following a sever drought. It's no surprise given the exhaustion Elijah must be feeling that he hits such a low, and is unable to see things clearly. By excluding these two incidents both films paint his breakdown in a fairly positive light, and indeed, in both scenes Elijah seems neither that shattered or particularly suicidal.

Secondly, it exorcises the more troubling aspects of the story. The slaying of the prophets of Baal takes place off screen. The incident with Ahaziah's captains is excluded entirely. The grisly death of Ahab despite God's promise to avert the disaster he prophesied earlier. Even the notion of sending a slave/servant up and down a mountain numerous times is fairly offensive to modern sensibilities.

One additional, minor, similarity is that both films keep the material in the same sequence as the biblical accounts, and truncate it at roughly the same point. That said this film does not include Elijah and Elishah parting the waters.

In contrast to the Testament film, which used expressionist animation to potray the imposing nature of Ahab and Jezebel, this film downplays their significance. Whilst they are clearly still the prime "troublers of Israel", their appearances are fairly fleeting, and the amount of dialogue both speaks is significantly abridged from the biblical text. The concerns of this filmmaker is much more the person of Elijah, and his role in "fearlessly" following God and doing what he is told.

Finally, this film really dwells on Elijah dousing the sacrifice on Mount Carmel with water. This is shown in the Testament version, but here it's shown in some detail. Strangely the sacrifice here is totally obliterated, along with the wood and the actual stone altar. Surprisingly, this is actually following the biblical text to the latter at this point.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Elijah

Elijah has always been one of my favourite characters in the Old Testament. There’s just something about the way he sees his God do incredible things, and yet there is a frail insecure humanity about him that makes him easy to relate to. It’s a shame, therefore, that his story has largely been neglected by filmmakers. I’m aware of only four versions of the story: Sins of Jezebel (1953), Elijah - A Fearless Prophet from the “Living Bible Series” (1958), the Latter Day Saints version Elijah and the Widow of Zarephath (1996) and this entry in the “Testament: Bible in Animation” series, simply called Elijah (also 1996). IMDB gives two other possible films, but has no information other than their years.

As a whole, the series is animated using a whole range of different techniques, most of which are very expressionist, few of which sit simply as just “cartoons” (see posts on Jonah, Ruth). Elijah is no exception. Eschewing attempts to create life-like illustrations of these characters the animation is again highly stylised. Elijah looking like Atlas, Ahab wide and squat, Jezebel tall and decorated. This is not animation just for kids.

Another unusual feature of this film is the soundtrack. Most 30 minute cartoons maybe have a silly song or two to break up the story. Elijah, on the other hand, realises the epic nature of it’s material, and enhances the towering images on the screen with operatic music performed by the BBC National Orchestra of Wales and the BBC National Chorus of Wales. Elijah’s solos are performed by Bryn Terfel (as opposed to David Schofield who voices his speech).

The film depicts nearly all of the biblical material concerning Elijah as can be seen by looking at the following scene guide.

Intro to Ahab - (1 Kings 16:29-34)
Death of the prophets - (1 Kings 18:4)
Elijah predicts drought - (1 Kings 17:1)
Elijah and the Ravens - (1 Kings 17:2-6)
Elijah and Widow of Zarephath - (1 Kings 17:7-24)
Elijah and Prophets of Baal - (1 Kings 18:1-2, 16-40)
End of the Drought - (1 Kings 18:45-46)
Elijah on the mountain - (1 Kings 19:1-18)
Elijah calls Elishah - (1 Kings 19:19-21)
God declares Judgement on Ahab - (1 Kings 21:17-21)
Elijah taken to Heaven - (2 Kings 2:1-14)

The only episode missing from the film then is Elijah’s meeting with Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:3-15, although Elijah getting his servant to climb the mountain in search of a rain cloud is also excluded. The screenplay does also subtly add some useful pieces of historical information such as the fact that Baal was god of the rain, or that the widow of Zarephath hailed from the same place as Jezebel herself. It also illustrates the slaying of the prophets of God, which is only referred to in the text (1 Kings 18:4), but acts to provide a good context for the stories that follow.

Another note the film adds is when Elijah calls Elishah from his father’s fields. Elishah’s father tells Elishah he is due a double portion of his inheritance, and this is obvisouly still in Elishah’s mind when shortly afterwards he asks his spiritual father, Elijah, for a double portion of his blessing instead.