The Bible: In the Beginning (1966)

The Bible (John Huston, 1966) has come to be known, somewhat unfairly, as the film that killed the biblical epic. It's a charge that somehow persists despite three major objections. Firstly, it hardly makes sense to blame a single film for destroying a genre, and even if did, that accusation should surely be pointed at The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) which blew £25 million for very little return, rather than at this. Secondly because rather than being an example of the worst of the genre it is surely one of it's best. Indeed, in concluding his masterful survey of the films of the Hebrew Bible, Jon Solomon cites it as one of the three "most representative and iconographical Old Testament depictions of the twentieth century" (175).

More significantly, of course is the fact that rumours of the genre's demise turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Whilst Jesus Christ, Superstar, released just seven short years later, is not exactly an epic, it would have seemed hard to argue in 1973, that the Hollywood Bible film was enjoying anything other than reasonable health.

Huston himself was one of the greatest figures in Hollywood. He burst onto the scene in 1941 with the brilliant PI flick The Maltese Falcon before heading to the front line of World War II and creating a series of documentaries for the army. Key Largo and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (both 1948) reunited him with Bogart, as did The African Queen (1951) and the spoof, Beat the Devil (1953) and his catalogue of famous films extended all the way beyond Prizzi's Honor in 1985. In between times he found time to continue the Hollywood dynasty founded by his father Walter, with three of his five children (Anjelica, Tony and Danny) going on to have prominent roles in Hollywood, as well as his grandson Jack, who had the lead role in the 2016 version of Ben-Hur.

Houston acted too., Most famously in Polanski's Chinatown (1974), but also here as an amiable Noah. Both Alec Guinness and Charlie Chaplin had initially been considered for the role, but Huston brings a cheerful sense of purpose to the impending destruction of humankind.  All this however is only after a masterful creation sequence and the sight of Michael Parks and Ulla Bergryd cavorting in the altogether behind a series of strategically-placed plants.

For the opening sequences, Huston narrates the opening chapter of Genesis over a series of stunning collection of images of the natural world: molten lava bubbles and flows as the land is separated from the sea; a gigantic sun rises, and moves across the skies, as the greater light is brought forth; and swarms of fish burst through the waters of the deep, as the creatures of the seas are created.

What is impressive about the creation sequence, in addition to the jaw dropping beauty of the images, is the way they so skilfully plot a course between a seven-day type literalist interpretation on the one hand, and more metaphorical readings on the other. Just like the written text, the viewer looks at the raw material and is able to apply their own interpretation. Furthermore, even after numerous nature documentaries and a number of cheap rip-offs the sequence still creates a sense of awe, even if Huston's use of the archaic King James Version and one of the more conventional parts of the soundtrack date things a little.

The soundtrack excels elsewhere however. Following the creation of Adam, and then Eve the fall and the scenes where Cain (Richard Harris) kills his brother are accompanied by more atonal music. This combined with the bizarre poses Harris strikes, and the low and then high camera angles make this whole sequence strange and disorientating. Whilst the narration is rigidly literal to the text, the film uses the more cinematic elements of image and sound to suggest this more mythical reading.

The one exception to this is Huston's Noah segment, which goes for more of a light-hearted family comedy feel. Gone is the slavish dependence (or at least the appearance of it) on the biblical text. Instead get other characters get to speak, such as Noah's wife who doesn't quite understand what is happening and Noah's disbelieving compatriots insulting him and calling him "stupid".Noah himself gets to use words and phrases not found in the text of Genesis such as when he suggests that the tigers are "only great cats" who can survive on milk from the other animals. Interspersed with this we get Huston mugging for the camera, visual jokes about the tortoises being last on to the arc and the slapstick spectacle of Noah sticking his foot in a bucket of pitch and sliding down the top deck. It's not that these homely touches are necessarily that bad, just that they feel somewhat out of place with the broody, otherworldly tone struck by the rest of the film. Huston rarely appeared in his own pictures, and perhaps this misstep gives a suggestion as to why. With that on top of having to manage an on-set zoo, it's hardly surprising he was repeatedly heard to quip "I don't know how God managed, I'm having a terrible time" (Huston 320).

In some ways, however, the film's episodic and inconsistent nature does mark it as a film of transition. Following the poor box office performance by both The Bible and The Greatest Story Ever Told, big studios seemed more reluctant to outlay immense budgets for biblical epics. Instead the 70s were featured the broadcast of numerous made-for-TV series marking the "migration of biblical narratives into the medium of television" (Meyer 232).

The rest of the film returns to this more pre-historic feel, aided by some fantastic high contrast lighting with gives so much of the film this eerie aura. Stephen Boyd's Nimrod, complete with a painted on mono-brow, shots his arrow to the sky and quickly finds there is no longer anyone who can understand his orders and then we swiftly move on to the sight of George C. Scott's Abraham leaving Ur.

Again the film does well presenting the main stories here (birth of Ishmael, visitation of the angels, the fall of Sodom and the aborted sacrifice of Isaac) in biblically faithful fashion whilst also questioning the legitimacy of that presentation. Particularly strange is the sight of Abraham's three ethereal visitors interchangeably using Peter O'Toole's head and an orgy scene dreamed up for Sodom that is more creepy than it is titillating.

The way these scenes pan out leaves Abraham's story, which comprises almost the film's entire second act, as some sort of hope for humanity, even as it hints of the rocky, even traumatic road ahead. The jump from a scene of he and Isaac walking stealthily through the chillingly charred remains of Sodom, to preparing for Abraham to kill his child, provokes anger rather than reverence. Abraham is troubled, but also haunted by the temperamental God who commands him. His willingness to sacrifice his son is more an act of fear of what might happen if he refuses than one of faithful service.

It's a fitting end to what is - in contrast to the majority of epics that went before it - "a personal film on a gigantic scale (Forshey 146). In some ways that is far more reflective of Genesis itself. Whilst chapter one paints of a broad scale, from there on in it's the story of God with a string of individuals - Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Huston's film not only gets this, but its highly literal narration, in tandem with its dark and primitive feel, underlines the mythological nature of the texts giving much of the film a strange sense of the dawn of time, and the primitive nature of the cultures involved. Whilst the change of tone in the Noah section is a little misplaced, it's hard to deny to boldness of Huston's artistic vision.
================
- Forshey, Gerald E. (1992) American Religious and Biblical Spectaculars Westport CT: Praeger.
- Huston, John (1981) An Open Book. London: Macmillian.
- Meyer, Stephen C. (2015) Epic Sound: Music in Postwar Hollywood Biblical Films, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
- Solomon, Jon. (2001) The Ancient World in the Cinema, (Revised and expanded edition). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ishmael in Film - Part 3

The Ishmael of the Hebrew Bible is essentially a passive character acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, but never an active initiator. This has resulted in his appearance in film roles being rather limited: no modern filmmaker has taken the sparse details of Ishmael's life from the Bible and used them as a starting point for a more creative/fictional/midrashic telling of his story, either as a leading role in his own right, or as a more significant character within the story of Abraham or Isaac. As a result Ishmael's appearances tend to be bland unimaginative and, as in the text, he is very much a character who is acted upon, little more than a moving prop.

This was not always the case. In 1912 Pathé released two reels (perhaps with the intention of distributors showing them together) Agar e Ismaël and Le Sacrifice d'Ismaël by Henri Andréani. Both films featured Ishmael in the title, even if the short running lengths prevented any complex characterisation.

Perhaps the most intriguing portrayal was in Huston's 1966 film The Bible. Ishmael, still a boy, desecrates a sacred ceremony marking Isaac's weaning. Sarah is appalled watching Ishmael snatch, toss, smash and bury the ceremonial doll, which is, presumably, Isaac's effigy. Sarah views this as a portent of the boys' future relationship, and Ishmael's desire to forcibly assert his authority over his younger brother. To the viewer this appears as simply childish play in an inappropriate context; the result of over exuberance, or perhaps bad parenting. Abraham, however, seems unsure not only torn by his love of his son and the complaints of his wife, he is perhaps as concerned by Ishmael's willingness to stray outside of the accepted religious ceremonial norms. God's voice-over assures him that he need not worry about Ishmael's fate, but also raises the question as to whether Ishmael would have been quite such a willing participant in Abraham's later "test of faith".

One consistent feature about the Isaac episodes is the negative portrayal of Sarai/Sarah. Whilst some of this is derived from the text itself, few films seek to understand Sarah, let along sympathise with her. Indeed most films depict her in an even poorer light than the texts, showing her treating Hagar harshly, (for example carrying heavy loads even when very heavily pregnant). The portrayal of Hagar is often similarly unsympathetic. Whereas the text says only that she "despised" Sarai, several films show her criticising Sarai to her face for being barren. The intention here consistently seems to be to portray Abraham as decent, sympathetic and essentially good. Unfortunately given that he would have been her social superior. He comes across as weak and controlled by Sarah, rather than the master of his own destiny. The consistently shrewish portrayals of Sarah are bolstered by many films using a voice-over to inform the audience that God has also reassured Abraham that he is making the correct decision.

The efforts to beatify Abraham also extend to the portrayal of Ishmael's conception. Almost universally this is depicted as Sarah's suggestion. Indeed the only film to show any flicker of interest from Abraham at the prospect of having sex with Hagar is the irreverent comedy The Real Old Testament (2003) where he feebly tries to shroud his glee at the very prospect. The 2013 miniseries The Bible sexualises Hagar still further by not only choosing an actress with "model looks", but also dwelling on her naked back as she lingers in the tent after conception, watching Abraham walk away unmoved by what has happened.

At this point in the biblical story, Hagar runs away, meets an angel/God in the desert and returns with prophetic words about his future ringing in her ears (Gen 16:6b-14). The similarities between this (Yahwist) account and that in Gen 21:14-19 (Elohist) have meant that the majority of films featuring Ishmael have only included one or the other, sometimes harmonising the two. The one exception is Abraham (1994), the longest portrayal of the Abraham story.

Ishmael's early days are captured in a variety of ways, in some films Sarai takes to the new addition to the family, whereas in other there is enmity from the start. Yet it's perhaps the 1994 film that is most interesting here as Sarai and Abram coo and delight in their son while a still recovering Hagar has to watch from a distance.

Such nuance is however generally absent from the later scenes featuring Ishmael, indeed it is only the Abraham entry in the Testament: The Bible in Animation series where he is given a proper line. There are a few hints of his prowess with the bow (Gen 21:20) in Abraham (1994) and The Bible (2013), but, aside from the incident in the Huston film, Ishmael only needs exist for Sarah's anger to be kindled.To that end it's perhaps not surprising that only one film, In the Beginning, (2000) shows Ishmael's appearance at his father's death bed (pictured above). It is clear from his arrival at the head of a group of horsemen that the angel's words about his prosperity are already coming to pass.

Ishmael in Film - Part 2

This is the the second of two posts about Ishmael in film. The first, it turns out, was rather error strewn, and anyone with any decency would have gone and made the corrections and added the labels and so on before writing the second. He or she would probably also write a better more meaningful post for part two and reply to comments more consistently. But unfortunately, you got me.

There are 6 films that I'm able to lay my hands on that depict Ishmael, but to be honest none of them really do much of great interest with him. This is, I suppose, mainly because he is a minor character. The Bible, and the films that do adapt his story, or rather his part in Abraham's story, are not really interested in him, they are interested in Abraham and Sarah and how they act and react. There's a certain amount of etiology in the Bible's account: Ishmael goes on to be the father of the Ishmaelites (popularly considered to be the descendants of the Arab people), and some of the Edomites (Gen 36) who both become enemies of the Israelites at times (although trusted servants at others - 1 Chron 27:30 for example). Gen 25:18 makes special mention of the Ishmaelites living in "hostility" to all the other tribes.

Essentially though Ishmael is a passive character, acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and to a lesser extent Hagar, but never really an active initiator. The last mention of Ishmael the man is from Genesis 25. He is with Isaac when Abraham is buried (which raises the question as to how contact was made / maintained between the half-brothers) and dies himself at the age of 137.

This doesn't leave scriptwriters a great deal to work with, and although with some characters such a blank sheet might be seen as an invitation to be creative, the need to focus on Abraham means that none of the films really take it.

The Bible (1966)
Sarai takes the initiative here, calling Hagar over and whispering into her ear. She waits for Abram, explains to him her plan. The enmity between Sarai and Ishmael (Gen 16:4) is made explicit early on with Hagar disdainfully comparing Sarai to "dried-up fruits", but it doesn't go to the extent we find in the rest of Genesis as Hagar does not flee from Sarah. The scene then changes to Abram's rescue of Lot (Gen 14), before returning to Ishmael's birth and childhood. But it's Sarah who urges Abraham to send them away, after Ishmael seizes a doll at a celebration of Isaac weaning, and then smashes it and buries it. Sarah again urges Abraham to take action; he is reluctant, but ultimately yields. The narrator adds that God also endorsed the plan in a sentence that sounds too ludicrously anachronistic to be from the KJV but actually is ("Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad"). The next scene is of bright desert sands reflecting the sun and the suddenness of the switch from the previous night-time scene, to the brightness of this scene, is at once beautiful and momentarily painfully glaring. Hagar and Ishmael collapse in the desert and Hagar cries out to God before an angel appears and makes water spring from the ground.

Abraham (1994)
Again everything is Sarai's idea, though here she asks Hagar as her free choice and then proposes it to Abram. Once the baby is born however Hagar makes comments to Sarai about her affair with Pharaoh and then questions her choice of bed for the baby. Hagar then runs away and has a conversation with an angel in line with Gen 16 and including some prophetic words about Ishmael. Hagar and Sarai make up and Hagar gives birth whilst sat on Sarai's knee. But the film is very clear that the child is Sarah's such that even as she is recovering from childbirth, Hagar has to lie there watching Abram and Sarai bring up Ishmael. There's an interesting scene with Abram and Ishmael preparing a sacrifice, which heavily prefigures God "testing" Abraham.

Isaac is born and looks up dotingly to Ishmael, cheering him on as he wrestles with older men and bests them.But as the boys grow older, the tension re-emerges between their mothers.  Sarah fears that Ishmael will do what Hagar tells him, and that Hagar wants to usurp Isaac and make Ishmael the leader. So Sarah persuades Abraham to send the pair away. They go off into the desert (Ishmael with a quiver slung over his shoulder), and struggle for their lives before the visitation from an angel. The spring appears though it's not explicitly a miracle. This, I think, is the only film to show both the times Genesis records Hagar meeting an angel.

Testament: The Bible in Animation - Abraham (1996)
Testament makes the primary focus of the Abraham's whole story, his search for an heir. Right from the start, during Abraham's time in Haran, his failure to find an heir is seen as a big problem, highlighted by both the narration and Sarah's isolation from the children who play around her. Once the move to Canaan is completed it's Sarah's idea for Abraham to have a child through Hagar, the sex is skipped over and the next scene is of a heavily pregnant Hagar still doing tasks for Sarah. Sarah asks "Have you done your work", to which Hagar snaps back "I've certainly done yours". Hagar runs into the desert but is spoken to by angelic/God figure, who tells her to return and not fear Sarah: "Do not be afraid she will be kind".

Again the film seems to skip over another of the more human moments of the story by missing Ishmael's birth. Of all the films this is really the only one to give Ishmael a proper role. He's seen talking to his father and asking "It will be a brother won't it?". It also both shows and mentions Ishmael with a bow and arrow as per Gen 21:20. Ultimately, though it is Sarah who sends Hagar away telling her husband "I will decide". Abraham is reluctant but hears God concur. "Free them" commands this film's God, trying its best to put some kind of positive spin on an episode that doesn't really reflect well on The Almighty.

The Bible: In the Beginning (2000)
Abraham is the main character in the first part of this two part miniseries - indeed even the creation story is narrated by him (to his people). Sarai offers Abram a concubine. He initially refuses, but eventually he visits her tent in the middle of the night. Next scene a heavily pregnant Hagar argues with Sarah and escapes to the desert. Drinking from a pool of water she sees a shadow in the pool and a Godly voice prophesies about Ishmael. Ishmael is born. Abram is happy, Sarai less so. Soon enough she's pregnant and it's Hagar that's in a grump. Isaac's born, Abe's happy again, but soon Sarah becomes all protective and scolds Ishmael. (Hagar and Sarah argue again, Sarah really doesn't come out of her dealings with Hagar with much credit) and soon Hagar's heading back to the desert. Abram weakly tells her God will look after her but the provision of water in the desert is missed out. If that sounds like one of dullest pieces of writing ever to appear on this blog then its because the Ishmael episodes are dealt with in such a dully mundane fashion that it drains any interest from the task of recounting it.

What's a little more interesting though is that Ishmael reappears (at the head of group of horsemen) just before Abraham dies. He and Isaac verbally jostle over pecking order and then Abraham blesses them both equally, making a vaguely 21st century sounding statement about respecting different paths, which sounds a bit forced, but at least it's something of interest in an otherwise turgid portrayal. This is the only film to show the death of Abraham.

The Real Old Testament (2003)
Ishmael doesn't actually appear in this endlessly hilarious version of Genesis, but the chapters 16 and 21 of Genesis are covered and feature Hagar fairly memorably. It's Sarai that suggests Abram taking Hagar as a concubine, and has to explain to him what it actually means. Abram is rather more keen on the plan here than in the other films, and, as he spends his night with Hagar in a sillhouetted tent, is heard triumphantly shouting "I'm young again".

Hagar flees Sarai and meets God in the desert, and as the film doesn't really deal with the story from Genesis 21 that's more or less it. It does however pick up on a couple of parts of chapter 16 that the other film's miss. First is God's prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man". In one of Hagar's talking to the camera sequences she clearly sees that as possible. "I have this uncle and he's a wild ass of a man". Also covered is Hagar naming God El-roi in Gen 16:13. God, however, is not impressed: "I'm not going to let that one stick".

The Bible (2013)
Of all the films discussed here, this is the one that simultaneously sexes things, whilst going to the other extreme to portray Abraham as whiter than white. When Sarah suggests that Abraham has his child through her, Abraham is initially vehement "no, no, no, no, no, no, no", but he does anyway. But as he departs from Hagar's tent he leaves the door open for long enough for Sarah and, more crucially, the camera to get a good look in. Hagar sits up, still naked, her beautiful back exposed to the elements. It's a very sexualised image, but in contrast, Abraham, fully clothed walks away as if he has been emotionally unaffected by the whole affair.

We also see Ishmael practising his archery (as per Gen 21:20), and Abraham celebrating his son's prowess. The story then cuts to the rather gratuitously violent story of Sodom before returning to the birth of Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are dispatched fairly quickly - though there is a heavy implication that it is God's decision and that Abraham is assured by God that they will survive, and prophesies to Ishmael that he will have many children. The camera fades on the two as they walk into the desert and there's no death of Abraham scene for him to feature in.

Death of Dino De Laurentiis

I was sorry to hear of the death of Dino De Laurentiis, producer of Barabbas, La Biblia and a few other minor Bible films. It was only last year that I reported on the celebrations for his 90th birthday.

De Laurentiis produces over 160 films including the Hannibal series, Conan the Barbarian, Flash Gordon and Fellini's La Strada, but I will remember him for The Bible: In the Beginning. It was a pivotal Bible film for me and one which contains some of the best ever scenes from Bible films.

Variety on Dino De Laurentiis

One of my favourite Old Testament films is 1966's The Bible: In the Beginning. It's famous for being directed by John Huston (pictured above) of course, but it owed a tremendous debt to it's producer Dino De Laurentiis. De Laurentiis turned 90 last month, though he's still involved in making films, returning to historical epics as recently as 2007 when he produced The Last Legion.

Anyway, Variety marked the occasion by publishing a good-sized quotation from the 2004's "Dino" - a biography of De Laurentiis by Tullio Kezich and Alessandra Levantes. It's a great indication of what filmproducers have to go through to get their pictures made, or at least an interesting insight into how this one went about things.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the link.

Bible Films that Never Were

Cecil B. DeMille's name will forever be associated with the biblical epic even though he only ever made three and a half films based on the Bible - his two versions of The Ten Commandments (1923¹ and 1956), his Jesus film The King of Kings and 1949's Samson and Delilah. Indeed, given that Samson and the second Ten Commandments were two of the last three movies he ever made , it's a reputation he might never have earned at all. True, there were a number of other ancient epics in his seventy-film canon, but it was those last two films in particular, that cemented his place in the popular imagination as the man that made biblical epics.

However, I've been reading Robert S. Birchard's "Cecil B. DeMille's Hollywood" recently, and one of the appendices lists the veteran director's unrealised projects. Given the vast number of movies he made, it's surprising that there are only twelve sucfilms, but it's interesting that four of them are Bible films.

The first of these is The Deluge which I discussed last year. DeMille was considering making the film in the late 20s, but when it became apparent that Michael Curtiz was already making Noah's Ark he switched his attention to The King of Kings instead. Aspiring filmmakers considering adapting the story of Noah take note.

The second film on Birchard's list was Esther (or The Story of Esther) and he notes that MacKinlay Cantour was working on this in the summer of 1934². Birchard doesn't say anymore, but given that this was the same year that DeMille directed Cleopatra, my guess is that he ultimately decided he could only handle one heroine-driven ancient epic at a time.

There's a good deal more information on Queen of Queens, DeMille's planned story of Jesus's mother, (though it's hard to believe that such a title would ever have been taken seriously).

Jeanie Macpherson worked on the script from November 20, 1939 to July 27, 1940. William C. DeMille also worked on the script from March 4, 1940 to June 7, 1941, and William Cowan wrote on the project from September 3 to October 9, 1940. Queen of Queens met some resistance from the Catholic Church , and the film was never scheduled for production.³

Lastly, Birchard tell us that Macpherson also started work on a script for the story of King David, Thou Art the Man.⁴ This was six years before David and Bathsheba reached the screen with its take on David's adultery, so it seems unlikely that once again DeMille had been put off by a similar project at another studio. Perhaps, given his long-standing desire to bring Samson's story to the screen he decided to focus on that instead.

Aside from the list of DeMille's films-that-never-were, I was also interested to read that Steve Reeves and Cary Grant had both been considered for the leading role in Samson and Delilah. Reeves is not in the least surprising, given that he went on to play Hercules and Goliath, but it's incredible to think that any kind of consideration was ever given to Grant. Of course, the whole point of the Samson and Delilah story is that the source of Samson's strength isn't obvious. So it wouldn't have been inconceivable for Grant to play him, but when you look at the final film, and it's emphasis on, and love for, Mature's oiled torso, it's hard to imagine Grant in that same role.

====

On a not unrelated note, Eric David of Christianity Today has written a short piece on French director Robert Bresson which claims that he was initially approached to direct Dino de Laurentiis' The Bible: In The Beginning.

In the mid 1960s, Dino de Laurentiis planned a series of films based on the Bible, featuring top directors of the day, including Huston, Visconti, Welles and Fellini. When Bresson, slated to direct Genesis, told de Laurentiis that he planned to film it in Hebrew and Aramaic, and wouldn't show any animals on Noah's Ark, only their footprints in the sand, he was fired. Huston took over and The Bible: In The Beginning, was released, but did not perform well enough to justify the other directors helming their respective films. Bresson yearned to film Genesis the rest of his life, but it never came to pass.

That would certainly have made for a very different film, but given that Bresson instead went on to direct his masterful Christ-figure film Au hasard Balthazar that same year, and that Huston's version has so much to commend it, it may well have all been for the best.

Bible Films and the Two Halves of the Brain.

I've just finished reading Walter Wink's book 'Transforming Bible Study'. Whilst it's primarily equipping its readers to facilitate a specific type of group Bible study, it also discusses the relationship between the right and left hemispheres of the brain, which, in turn, got me thinking about where Bible films fit into the picture.

Wink's main points are that the fields of academic study of the Bible and of personal transformation by it are growing ever further apart; that, very loosely speaking, these two fields map to the split that has been found between the two halves of the brain; that if we only use one hemisphere of our brain when we approach the Bible we are ultimately being "halfiwits"; and, thus that we should be seeking to re-integrate the two.

Wink also outlines the advantages of doing so, particularly for those approaching the issue from the academic (left side) side of the divide. He cites evidence suggesting that re-allocating time spent studying maths to music and art actually improved scores in maths, and goes on to cite various stories of scientists who have made their breakthroughs, not whilst hard at study but whilst engaged in something else entirely, such as Archimedes's bath, Newton's apple or Kekule's benzene ring. The theory is that once the right brain is given the chance to work on such problems it uses it's intuition and creativity to find a solution that the right brain would not have found. The final part of the argument is that the best situation is when both halves of the brain are working together.This got me on to thinking about a couple of examples where watching Bible films has been significant in increasing understanding. The first relates to my own experience. Perhaps seven or so years ago, I was still trying to make my mind up over whether Genesis should be taken more literally, or more symbolically. I swayed towards the latter, but still felt some sympathy with the former position. However, the decisive moment for me was watching John Huston's The Bible. That film takes a very literal approach, but at the same time its dark and primitive feel undermines its handling of the text. For me, for reasons I'm still not sure I can explain, the penny dropped, and these stories have remained firmly mythological for me ever since.

The second example I can think of is during the release of The Passion of the Christ. At the time I remember being amazed at just how many people said that this had made them understand more clearly how Jesus had suffered and so on. Shortly afterwards I was in a talk where the speaker really over did it on describing a crucifixion and I remember feeling it was all a bit over the top so soon after that film.In both cases there was a certain amount of critical understanding and academic engagement with the text, but looking at a more creative exploration of it enabled the viewers to "get it" on a whole new level. The penny dropped as the right side of the brain was brought into it.

And this, I guess, is one of the reasons why Bible films can be important, especially for those studying the text. Anyone who is studying a given text has a good knowledge of it, primarily from using the left half of their brains. By watching that text depicted on screen, the right half of the brain is brought into the equation and the two can work together towards more innovative solutions.

Time on Huston's The Bible

Peter Chattaway is starting to work his way through films featuring Noah's Ark, and having recently watched John Huston's The Bible: In the Beginning he's picked up on the subsequent career of Michael Parks who played Adam.

More importantly, Peter also linked to an archived article on the film from Time magazine, dating from January 1965 - 18 months before it was released. There's all kinds of things in there, but in particular the film-makers are surprisingly keen, even then, to distance themselves from DeMille. Here are a couple of quotations:

"The picture won't be like DeMille's," says one of De Laurentiis' assistants. "DeMille would take the 40 years of Moses' life not covered by the Bible and he would create a motion picture story. We have tried faithfully to reproduce and annotate the text of the Bible."...
...Sodom has been built out of charred plastic and spreads over 25 acres of Mount Etna. Katherine Dunham and her dancers were called in to provide the sin. Huston filmed Sodom dimly lit, and shied clear of the debauches of DeMille's epics. "There's no obscenity," says Huston, "but you will know unspeakable things are going on."

I posted some comments on this film from Huston's autobiography a while back. There are also some nice behind the scenes photos available here.

Huston on making The Bible

I realised the other day that I haven't blogged on a film about the Old Testament since the 5th June when I posted about the planned, Ten Commandments spoof, The Ten to star Paul Rudd. This is, of course, partly due to having time off for becoming a father, as well wanting to cover Radio 4's Silverscreen Beats series on the music of various Jesus films, as well as there being a fair bit of news about forthcoming Jesus films such as The Nativity Story, and the BBC's Passion. Anyway, it's clearly time to redress the balance.

Recently, I picked up a copy of John Huston's auto-biography "An Open Book" (which you can search inside at Amazon). My main point of interest was of course his discussion of his 1966 film The Bible: In the Beginning which is one of my favourite Old Testament films, and which I discussed briefly in my review of films about Genesis. Huston, as the title suggests, is fairly open about the various comings and goings, and is much more interested in telling stories surrounding the production that giving a careful shot by shot analysis of every scene. Although he later denied any similarity with Cecil B. DeMille, they do, at least, have this in common.¹

Huston raises a number of interesting points. Firstly, he clearly has a love for animals, and readily gives the impression that the part of the film he enjoyed most was the scenes of Noah's Ark. Of course, ultimately Huston himself played Noah, and incorporated into the final film several of the quirky habits of some of his four legged friends such as the elephant that uses his trunk to force Huston to stroke him some more, the hippo who would open his mouth as soon as he heard Huston approach, and the giraffes that would block his path until he fed them sugar. Despite his love of animals, and the high level of care and personal attention he gave to them before and during filming, Huston originally had wanted Charlie Chaplin for the role.
It would have been a strange choice, although perhaps it explains the strangely anachronistic scene where Noah gets a bucket of pitch stuck on his foot, and slides down the ark's sloping deck. That scene has always felt so out of keeping with the feel of the rest of the film. The other actor Huston wanted for the role was Alec Guinness who was at the time, popularly known as much for his (Ealing) comedy as his more serious work.

My favourite sequence of the film is the creation scene, and Huston explains how they spent quarter of a million on these opening few minutes alone. The scenes were not shot by Huston, but by stills photographer Ernst Haas, who had no experience of motion picture photography and had to go on a crash course before flying to the far corners of the globe to get his footage. Huston explains how he wanted these scenes to be shown...

...not as a single event at the beginning of time, but as a continuing, eternal process. Each morning is a new creation - something now and forever.

What is impressive about these, in addition to the jaw dropping beauty of the images, is the way they so skilfully plot a course between a seven-day literalist interpretation on the one hand, and more metaphorical readings on the other. Just like the written text, the viewer looks at the raw material and is able to apply their own interpretation. In fact, the whole film works in a similar way. the great strength of this film is how it manages to be rigidly literal to the text, whilst simultaneously suggesting a mythical reading.

When interviewed about the film, Huston was almost always asked if he believed the bible literally, and he obligingly includes his stock response that

Genesis represented a transition from Myth, when man, faced with creation and other deep mysteries, invented explanations for the inexplicable; to Legend, when he attributed to his forebears heroic qualities of leadership, valor and wisdom; to History, when, having emerged from Myth and Legend, accounts of real exploits and events of the past were handed down from father to son before the written word.

The reading of Genesis marking a movement from myth to legend to history is not uncommon, in fact CS Lewis expressed a similar view in his essay "Is Theology Poetry" for "Screwtape Proposes a Toast":

The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical - hanging in the clouds: but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah's Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate.

(You can read more of this here)

Huston does reveal a few of the tricks of the film. The tower of babel was shot on two sets in two different countries. The base was built on the studio's back lot (presumably in Italy), whilst the summit was built on the top of a steep slope outside Cairo. However, to give the impression of a tall tower whilst filming at the base they used a glass shot (painting the top of the tower, in correct perspective, on a piece of glass positioned in front of the camera). He also discusses in some detail the process used to create the (seemingly unedited) creation of Adam sequence using three clay casts built by sculptor Giacomo Manzu.

There are also a few interesting quotes. He recounts, for example, what is probably his most famous cry during filming "I don't know how God managed, I'm having a terrible time". It would appear that this was caused more by George C. Scott and the Egyptian authorities, than by animals behaving as they shouldn't.

There are also a number of quotes on the nature of his faith. Perhaps the most extensive is his answer to the question "Do you believe in God?"

in the beginning, the Lord God was in love with mankind and accordingly jealous. He was forever asking mankind to prove our affection for Him: for example, seeing if Abraham would cut his son's throat. But then, as eons passed, His ardor cooled and He assumed a new role--that of a beneficient deity. All a sinner had to do was confess and say he was sorry and God forgave him. The fact of the matter was that He had lost interest. That was the second step. Now it would appear that He'd forgotten about us entirely. He's taken up, maybe, with life elsewhere in the universe on another planet. It's as though we ceased to exist as far as He's concerned. Maybe we have.

The truth is I don't profess any beliefs in an orthodox sense. It seems to me that the mystery of life is too great, too wide, too deep, to do more than wonder at. Anything further would be, as far as I'm concerned, an impertinence.

You can read more of Huston's quotes on religion, faith and God here.

1-Madsen, A., John Huston: A Biography, Doubleday and Company: Garden City, New York (1978), p. 212

Genesis Films

This is an article I wrote for the Open Heaven Church website back in the days before this blog really existed. It's likely that the article will disappear from that site shortly, so I thought I ought to repost it before it disappeared forever.
===

Of all the events narrated in the Bible, perhaps the hardest to picture, let alone understand, are those in Genesis. Whilst there have been several attempts by filmmakers to capture these formative events on celluloid, their most productive time was actually back in the silent period. The most comprehensive lists cite around 20 films on the various stories made during the silent period, and a further six in the first 10 years of the “talkie” period. By contrast, the past 70 years have only produced a similar number.

The first film made about a story in Genesis was the French film Joseph Vendu Par Ses Frères (Joseph Sold by his Brothers) made in 1904. Other notable films in this early period included 1928 silent version of Noah’s Ark (where allegedly some people actually died filming the spectacular flood scene[1]), and The Green Pastures (1936) a child’s daydreamed version of the stories she is hearing in Sunday School.

The Green Pastures was probably the first film to portray God, and certainly the first to portray him as a black man. Unsurprisingly the Ku Klux Klan were outraged and protested causing many theatre owners to refuse to show it. The Genesis scenes, being seen through a child’s imagination make no attempt to be realistic, but their gentle humour, and basic simplicity give the film a spiritual authenticity that is absent from the majority of these films.

Perhaps the best known Genesis film was made by John Huston in 1966. The Bible looked at the first 22 chapters of Genesis, starting with a wonderfully filmed creation sequence (voiced by Huston himself), and progressing through to Abraham and Isaac. The Bible was made at the end of the golden era of the biblical epic, and wisely avoids making this into a spectacular but camp, bathrobe drama. Instead its dark lighting gives much of the film a strange sense of the dawn of time, and the primitive nature of the cultures involved.

At the same time the literalism of the presentation will both find favour with those who take a more literal understanding of the “how” questions of creation, whilst also giving it the air of archetypal myth that adopt a more symbolic interpretation.

The Bible was the last Hollywood film based on the Old Testament for over 30 years, with the exception of Richard Gere’s 1985 turn as King David, (replete with his undignified monkey dancing in front of a returning Ark of the Covenant). Instead most bible films began to be made for the TV and the church market. Typical of this was the late seventies “Greatest Heroes of the Bible” series, which included the stories of Noah, The Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham, Joseph. Around the same time the American organisation Campus Crusade (who made the 1979 Jesus film) made Genesis. This was a word for word, bland narration of the whole book accompanied by fairly uninspiring images which lasted for four long hours. It’s biggest plus point was it’s use of Middle Eastern actors, but it’s no surprise that none of them subsequently became the new Omar Sharif.

The eighties were a dry old time for cinematic versions of the book. Only the intriguingly titled Italian film Adam and Eve: The First Love Story and Mrinal Sen’s Hindi adaptation of the first five chapters were even made.

The nineties were a different matter. With Phil Collin’s namesake rock band out of the way, the bible’s opening tome was back in business. Whilst there were many Genesis movies made over that decade the majority were made by the Italian-American based company Lux Vide. Lux Vide put together 11 Old Testament stories as part of their “Bible Collection”, which also includes three New Testament films Jesus, Paul and The Apocalypse (my review), as well as four largely fictional spin offs, (each loosely based on a marginal New Testament character). Four of the Old Testament episodes were based on the events in Genesis - Creation and Flood, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, and all four have their points of interest. Abraham, Jacob and Joseph frequently pierce the Sunday School cocoon that surrounds many tellings of these stories, both in cinema and other media, by including stories such as The Rape of Dinah, and Judah and Tamar that are so awkward, real, embarrassing and controversial that they are usually excluded completely. And the performances of Richard Harris, Sean Bean and Ben Kingsley respectively are usually worth watching in their own right.

Of the four, Genesis: Creation and Flood (1994) is possibly the jewel in the crown. Certainly it is strikingly different from the more traditional and straightforward tellings of the story that the other films give us. Instead of attempting to emulate the pattern of the earlier The Bible, or of the other films in the series, Genesis: Creation and Flood sets it’s own course. Covering the first eight and half chapters the film shows us the stories through the eyes of an old man telling his grandson the history of his people. Paul Schofield narrates in all but a few passages, only occasionally interrupted by a female counterpart.

The narration is accompanied by a striking series of images, occasionally interspersed by shots of Grandfather and the child, and other members of their family. It is an unusual effect. As Peter T Chattaway notes how normally you would be able to “follow any film's basic narrative thrust with the sound turned off… Genesis would fail that test”.[2]  In other words the narration shapes how the images are perceived. In a sense, this is like the act of creation itself, bringing form and order to the otherwise chaotic and unintelligible. The slow pacing of the film also gives it a meditative feel, enabling the audience to let the images wash over them whilst highlighting the words that drive them, and bring them meaning. This relaxed pace also brings a level of internal calm and thus transports the viewer to another time and another place far more effectively.

Ultimately then Creation and Flood is far more poetic than any of it’s predecessors, and it is ironic that a film which is essentially driven by such a narrative and literary work is ultimately so unliterary and poetic as a final product. It’s also interesting how the stress here on the story being passed down from generation to generation reflects the oral tradition that preceded and underlies the written text we have today.

Another film that takes this community narrative approach was a made for TV movie In the Beginning (2000). Martin Landau headed up a strong cast, playing Abraham; just four years after he had played Abraham’s grandson Jacob in the aforementioned Joseph. At over three hours, In the Beginning had plenty of time to cram in a number of these stories, and as a result, it could afford to continue well into Exodus. The creation scene here is also told by way of a flashback, but the sequence is so overloaded with explosive special effects, and cheap modern documentary footage it completely strips the event of its mystery and gravitas.

The end of the millennium brought with it a flood of biblical stories, and Genesis films were no exception. Chief amongst the offenders was another TV movie Noah’s Ark (1999), which was almost as unwelcome as the events it depicts. It is difficult to imagine what motivated the production of this film. Its attempt to weave futuristic elements into a pre-historic myth backfires more spectacularly than a seventies Robin Reliant. The bizarre futuristic elements evoke Kevin Costner’s mega flop Waterworld. Had that film been a success this at least could be called a cheap cash in, but as it was a commercial disaster that cannot have been the driving factor. Similarly terrible is the ludicrous attempt to pass off its idiotic amalgamation of the stories of Lot and Noah with the ridiculous off-hand comment “by the time they finish the story of Sodom and Gomorrah they will probably say we weren't even there."

The only potential merit of the film is that it solves the debate on God’s foreknowledge for ever. Noah’s Ark is so bad that if God had known the flood would spawn this stinker, he may have opted for another method of world destruction, (or at least have made sure that this was destroyed along with everything else). Frankly, it deserves every “wooden acting” joke that critics can throw at it.

Another poorly executed Genesis film is the straight to video Prince of Egypt  prequel   Joseph King of Dreams. The film does have some good points, notably the dream sequences which certainly benefit from a more creative and more expressive medium. However, the tiresome songs quickly become so dull that ultimately you begin to wonder if a spell in prison like Joseph’s might be far preferable.

Perhaps the best Genesis film of recent years (and of all time) is Cheick Oumar Sissoko’s La Genèse(1998). Sissoko’s film tells the story of Abraham’s family from an African perspective, and as a result, it is recorded in the Bambara language of Mali, spoken by only few million people. As a result La Genèse understands the nomadic tribal context in which these stories are set, far better than any number of  Hollywood films, and brings with it a number of fascinating insights.

It also refuses to lionise its protagonists, and emphasises just how dysfunctional this family was at times. Too often these characters have been stripped of their humanity, and shown simply as one dimensional heroes. La Genèse gives a more realistic picture which honours the God who uses such ordinary, broken unreliable people to further his will, and offers us hope that he can use us as well.

La Genèse is also beautifully filmed capturing the wonderful landscapes, and capturing something of the empty space that typified the world several thousand years ago. Nevertheless, at times the film is very stark and brutal in what it captures – starring unflinchingly at some of the more earthy elements of the story.

It’s the ability of this film to bring a new angle to well known and familiar stories that makes it so valuable. There have been many films on the various Genesis stories, but only a handful bring something insightful, interesting or challenging. Of these three stand out in particular. The Bible (1966) simultaneously shuns the worst excesses of the 50s and 60s Biblical Epics whilst subverting some of the genre’s standard features. La Genèse (1998) brings the tribal context to the fore, exploring the stories with an authenticity that is largely absent otherwise. Finally, Genesis: Creation and Flood (1994), offers us the chance to reflect on scripture anew as it draws attention to the poetic nature of the text.  

---

[1] Various reports of this, the best online can be found at www.jimusnr.com/Noahsark.html

[2] www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0501/artvideos