"The Lions' Den" in Film

The earliest known occurrence of the story of Daniel in the Lions' Den being adapted for film goes back to Pathé's Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (dir: Lucien Nonguet, 1905). Released within a decade of the invention of cinema it is one of the earliest examples of the spectacular in biblical films, which had been hitherto dominated by passion plays. Not only did the film make use of, the by then increasingly common, double exposure to portray angelic appearances, it also featured people trapped in enclosed spaces with real-life lions.

The success of this film resulted in a flurry of films about Daniel in the early silent era though only Gaumont's Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (dir: Louis Feuillade, 1908) and Vitagraph's 1913 film Daniel (dir: Frederick A. Thomson / Madison C. Peters) seem to have covered this particular story.

Surprisingly, from this point on filmmakers appear to have lost interest in the lions' den narrative. It was not until forty years after the Vitagraph film that the story would be brought again to the screen in Columbia's Slaves of Babylon (dir: William Castle, 1953). Even then the film is clearly cheaply made (particularly for a major studio) and Daniel is supplanted as the main character by the fictional Nahum. The brief lions' den scene occurs about halfway through the film and is set during the reign of Nebuchnezzar rather than Cyrus. This is because the film has made Cyrus one of its heroes who is mentored by Nahum and thus rises from a shepherd boy to king. The scene itself sees Daniel, who is wearing a large Star of David pendant, being abused by an angry crowd who jeer and throw stones at him en route to the den.

Despite the fact that the story has not been adapted a great deal as a standalone film, it has proved to be of more interest for those making a series of films, particularly for television. Daniel featured twice in The Greatest Heroes of the Bible series in 1978-79, including a whole episode being devoted to the story in Daniel in the Lions' Den (dir: James L Conway, 1978). As is typical of the series, it's a tame affair, with an invented sub-plot that makes Daniel appear incompetent, and a very poor special effect used to portray the divine presence that keeps the eponymous hero safe.

Another extended series to include the episode was the Welsh/Rusian collaboration Testament. The Bible in Animation. The Daniel instalment, directed by Lioudmila Koshkina in 1996, utilises a a story within a story plot structure, told centuries after the events have taken place. It uses an unusual animation style of oil paint on glass form of animation, which gives a rather gruesome appearance to some of the less child friendly moments in the story. The non-realistic animation makes these shots more permissible, yet paradoxically more disturbing at the same time and are particularly effective as the pack of hungry lions tears towards Daniel as the den is sealed.

Whilst the story of lions' den has not proved popular in the wider culture, recent years have seen far greater interest in animated productions of the story often aimed primarily at a Christian audience. These include Animated Stories from the Bible: Daniel (dir: Richard Rich, 1993), The Beginners Bible: The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den (dir: Gary Selvaggio, 1996), Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible: Daniel and the Lions' Den (dir: William R. Kowalchuk, 1998), Veggie Tales: Where is God when I'm S-S-Scared? (dirs:  Phil Vischer/Mike Nawrocki, 2003) and Bugtime Adventures: It's the Pits (Jeff Holder, 2006). All five of these productions originate in America suggesting that the story of Daniel in the lions' den is in an unusual situation. One the one hand it appears to be of little interest to wider audiences, but on the other it seems to be of particular interest to the Christian community.

Whilst the above titles could be merely suggesting popularity with children, there have also been two recent live action versions of the story the Liken Bible Series' Daniel and the Lions (dir: Dennis Agle Jr., 2006), a product of the Church of the Latter Day Saints; and The Book of Daniel (Anna Zielinski, 2013) by the American evangelical studio PureFlix. The latter film spends the longest amount of time developing the relationship between Daniel and Dairius. It's also the only films to show lionesses joining their male counterparts. Daniel cites the words from Lamentations 3:55-58 as well as various fragments from the Psalms.

The recent popularity of the story with American evangelicals suggests that this is a story they feel is particularly important them. Given the rhetoric in recent decades about traditional Christian values being under attack it's not hard to see how the Daniel story resonates with this. Daniel (and his friends) represent a beleaguered minority who are under attack from a hostile wider culture, but who, by holding true to their values, ultimately prevail. There's a double persecution metaphor here. Not only do they find the cultures of the Babylonians / Medes / Persians hostile but there is also the more raw and immediate threat of the lions.

Of course it is precisely for this reason that the phrase "the lions' den" has entered into the wider lexicon as a metaphor for entering a hostile situation. This metaphorical use accounts for the title of Argentinian director Pablo Trapero's Leonera (Lion's Den, 2008) which tells the story of a pregnant woman's incarceration in a state prison (pictured above). Whilst the references to the biblical text are largely limited to the film's title, the sense of fear, hostility, danger, oppression but ultimately survival resonate with the danielic theme.

The lions' den incident also comprised a significant part of the fifth episode of The Bible (2013) which manages to cover a significant proportion of the Book of Daniel. The lions' den scene portrays a genuinely terrified Daniel who is, rather oddly, clad only in a loincloth. Whilst the series was both produced by American evangelicals and with an eye very much on that demographic, it also sought to appeal to a wider audience, perhaps an indication that the story is finally finding a hearing in the wider culture, and redressing an under representation that has been in effect since the end of the early silent era.

Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (1905)

It's been the British Silent Film Festival this week, hosted in my local city of Leicester, so whilst none of the films are (strictly) biblical, it nevertheless seems like an apt occasion to look at some more Silent Bible Films.

Daniel dans la fosse aux lions is part of Les martyrs chrétiens (dir: Lucien Nonguet, 1905), but it's one of those occasions where it's difficult to know whether one film is being discussed, or three. It seems to have been a tactic favoured for a few years around 1910 (see also the discussion on Gaumont's 1910 Esther and Milano's 1910 San Paolo one).

The first film in the sequence consists of a lion tamer performing some stunts in the Roman arena, before a cut and we are treated to a procession round the arena featuring two Christians. They bow before the emperor before being strung up on crosses, which largely obscure their bodies from view. In a gruesome finale the lions then tear meat from the crosses moments after a cut has, presumably, switched the bodies.

This then is the context into which Daniel dans la fosse aux lions is presented - the earliest known adaptation of the story of Daniel in the lions' den being adapted for film. It consists of what appears to be only one shot, although it is at least two, and possibly several more (of course all "shots" in cinema are actually just a series of individual still images displayed consecutively).

At the start of the film Daniel is lead out and tied to a post, whilst Darius looks down from the very top of the shot, gesturing in Daniel's general direction. Then the gate opens and a lion and lioness enter, the lioness even coming close enough to sniff him. Given the scene that has just been witnessed this would, presumably have been a tense moment for many in the audience. In the opening film the switch is fairly obvious, but here 'Daniel' is clearly real living flesh and blood. Sadly, the tension is then rather wasted by an angel materialising in front of us via via a not particularly impressive double exposure. As the angel disappears, Daniel's chains fall off much to the relief of the still watching Darius. Pausing to give the lions a little stroke he leaves the den via the gates from which he entered. It remains the most daring Daniel in the Lions' Den sequence on film.

Double exposure was a popular photography trick even before the invention of the movies, so it's no surprise that it was such a popular technique so early in the development of cinema. Conversely, the sight of a man seemingly at the mercy of lions would be a cheaper way for audiences to experience the thrills of lion tamer-type circus skills. Combining both together in this way, probably represents the earliest example of 'the spectacular' in biblical films, which has remained popular in biblical epics through to today.

The final film in the sequence is Le festin de Balthazar (Belshazzar's Feast) which I wrote about back in 2014.

The Bible (2013) - Part 5

Episode 5 of The Bible (Survival) picks up one of the parts of the book that most adaptations tend to miss, so packed into this episode is both a bit on Jeremiah and a good deal of the Book of Daniel. This is definitely one of the episodes in this series that keeps on track to covering the biblical material without getting waylaid in invented subplots.

Jeremiah's story is reduced more or less to him turning up in King Mattaniah's court wearing an ox-yoke and telling his monarch to surrender to Nebuchanezzar.  Nebuchanezzar here is played by Peter Guinness, who I've always enjoyed seeing pop up ever since Spender (1991-93). Mattaniah takes no notice of course so it's hardly surprising when just a few moments later we're treated to Nebuchanezzar putting out the king's eyes. By hand. Because, everything in this series, particularly the violence, has to be completely over the top

Jeremiah is played by Raad Rawi and appears old and shaggy looking, (in keeping with Jeremiah's likely age at this point). Certainly he's nowhere near as hot as Patrick Dempsey, from the 1998 film version, though that film focused far more on the start of Jeremiah's ministry. The contrast is all the greater, then, with the actor playing Daniel. I must admit that when I've read Daniel in the past, it never occurred to me that he might have a six-pack. I suppose I should probably blame the lack of a major-studio produced 50s biblical epic adaptation for that.

The Daniel section of the film not only includes the Lion's Den scene but also has time to show Daniel's rise to prominence via dream interpretation; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego surviving the Nebuchanezzar's furnace (thanks to a suspiciously Jesusy-looking angel); and Nebuchadnezzar descent into madness. Guinness isn't quite munching-grass in these scenes, but that's probably because he's already had his fill of the scenery.

It's not really made clear why on top of being fed to the lions Daniel also has to undergo this trial in just a loincloth, aside from the opportunity to show off the prophet's abs. In any case what the film does do well is to show show a genuinely fearful Daniel, even if we know it will all be okay in the end. I suppose Daniel's near nakedness heightens the sense of his vulnerability. And then the Israelites get to go back to Jerusalem and there's still 7 minutes left to talk about the Romans ahead of the next episode. All in all this is one of the better entries in the series, not only covering a lot of material without getting sidetracked, but by providing one or two genuinely insightful moments.

Daniel in the Lion's DenGreatest Heroes of the Bible series (1978-79)

In contrast to the way in which the story of Daniel has generally been a less popular on film than in general, The Greatest Heroes of the Bible series gave it two episodes out of a total of fifteen/seventeen. The unusual prominence the producers of the series give to it may also be reflected in the fact that it features one of the series' biggest stars, Robert Vaughn, as King Darius. Amongst the episode's other more recognisable faces were two former child stars, Sherry Jackson, from 50s sitcom Make Room for Daddy, and Dean Stockwell, best known to us from roles in Quantum Leap, Air Force One and Blue Velvet, but at the time known for a string of child roles. Indeed Stockwell is one of the few actors associated with the series whose career hit an upward trajectory after their role in it.

Allotting the story of Daniel (played by David Birney) two episodes rather than one means that this episode, even more than other entries in the series, created a sub-plot to fill out the obvious human-interest shaped holes in the biblical narrative. Here Daniel's rivals are not only jealous that he is higher than them in the hierarchy, but concerned that he has caught them swindling the system. The three advisors (including Stockwell's Hissar) have been substituting cheap building materials for expensive ones and pocketing the extra cash. However, rather than enhancing his role, Daniel's eventual uncovering of the scheme, thanks to a tip off from a Jewish labourer, makes him look weak. The con has been going on for a long time and he, as Darius' chief advisor, has only just noticed. Not only that but whilst he is dithering about what to do about it, his fleet-of-foot rivals manage to convince Darius to create the law that imperils Daniel.

The series frequently produces special effects that appear sub-par by today's standard, but Daniel in the Lions' Den is particularly culpable in this respect. Aside from the key scene in which an inferior stone lintel cracks at just the right moment to prove right Daniel and his labourer-ally, the angel/light that appears to protect Daniel in the den of lions (above) is really feeble. It seems unlikely to keep a child at bay, let alone a hungry lion.

But if the episode does anything well it might be the way it suggests many of Daniel's fellow Jewish slaves distrust and even fear him now he has risen to such prominence. It's speculation of course, but it suggestion that 70ish years in exile is enough time for his people to grow affinity on the basis of their place in the social strata rather than race is an interesting one. Given that many Jews decided to stay in the region rather than return home to Judah, perhaps it is correct.

List of Daniel Films

Whilst most of the stories from the Bible that get made into films tend to be those which are popular in Sunday Schools, one of the main exceptions is the story of Daniel. Popular in the pews; not so  much in Hollywood. Here's the titles of all the Daniel Films I've managed to find over the years:

Les martyrs chretiens: Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (Lucien Nonguet[France], 1905)
Les martyrs chretiens: Le Festin de Balthazar (Lucien Nonguet[France], 1905)
Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (Louis Feuillade[France], 1908)
Le Festin de Balthazar (Louis Feuillade[France], 1910)
Les Sept Péchés Capitaux: L’Orgueil (The Seven Capital Sins: No. 1, Pride (Nebuchadnezzar)) (Louis Feuillade[France], 1910)
Cast into the Flames (Gaumont[France], 1910)
The Fall of Babylon (Theo Frenkel[UK], 1911)
Le Festin de Balthazar (Gaumont[France], 1913)
Daniel (Frederick A. Thomson / Madison C. Peters[USA], 1913)
Slaves of Babylon (William Castle[USA], 1953)
Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Daniel in the Lions Den* (James L Conway[USA], 1978)
Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar* (James L. Conway [], 1979)
Nabucco (Henri Ronse[France], 1979)
Nabucco (Renzo Giacchieri[Italy], 1981)
Belshazzar (Harry Kupfer[Italy], 1985)
Nabucco (Robert De Simone[Italy], 1986)
Animated Stories from the Bible: Daniel (Richard Rich [USA], 1993)
Veggie Tales: Rack, Shack & Benny  ( Phil Vischer/Mike Nawrocki,[USA], 1995)
The Beginners Bible: The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den (Gary Selvaggio, [USA], 1996)Testament. The Bible in Animation: Daniel (Lioudmila Koshkina[UK], 1996)
Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible: Daniel and the Lions' Den (William R. Kowalchuk [USA], 1998)
Nabucco (Fabio Sparvoli[It/US/UK/FR/GER/CZ], 1998)
Nabucco (Gianfranco de Bosio[Austria], 2000)
Nabucco (Elijah Moshinsky[USA], 2001)
Veggie Tales: Where is God when I'm S-S-Scared? ( Phil Vischer/Mike Nawrocki,[USA], 2003)
Bugtime Adventures: It's the Pits (Jeff Holder[USA], 2006)
Liken Bible Series: Daniel and the Lions ([USA], 2006)
Belshazzar (Don Kent[France], 2008)
The Bible: Survival (Crispin Reece; Tony Mitchell; Christopher Spencer[USA/UK], 2013)
The Book of Daniel (Anna Zielinski[USA], 2013) - pictured above

Even just a cursory glance of these 30 titles reveals that almost all of them fall into at least one of four basic categories: church-based, animated, silent or opera adaptation. Sadly many of the early, short, silent films are now lost. That leaves a couple of entries from a longer series (Greatest Heroes of the Bible (1978-79) and The Bible(2013)) and the 1953 film Slaves of Babylon.

I must admit I know very little about Nabucco, Verdi's 1841 Opera which has been filmed at least six different times, or about Belshazzar, Handel's 1744 Oratorio which has been brought to the screen twice.

I'm about to do a piece on the Lion's Den in film and surprisingly there are significantly fewer films that cover this, given that the story is the most famous of those from the book of Daniel. I suspect this is because many of the films are from the early silent era. Anyway films that specifically cover the Lion's Den scene are:

Les martyrs chretiens: Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (Lucien Nonguet[France], 1905)
Daniel dans la fosse aux lions (Louis Feuillade[France], 1908)
Daniel (Frederick A. Thomson / Madison C. Peters[USA], 1913)
Slaves of Babylon (William Castle[USA], 1953)
Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Daniel in the Lions Den* (James L Conway[USA], 1978)
Animated Stories from the Bible: Daniel (Richard Rich [USA], 1993)
Testament. The Bible in Animation: Daniel (Lioudmila Koshkina[UK], 1996)
The Beginners Bible: The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den (Gary Selvaggio, [USA], 1996)
Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible: Daniel and the Lions' Den (William R. Kowalchuk [USA], 1998)
Veggie Tales: Where is God when I'm S-S-Scared? ( Phil Vischer/Mike Nawrocki,[USA], 2003)
Bugtime Adventures: It's the Pits (Jeff Holder[USA], 2006)
Liken Bible Series: Daniel and the Lions ([USA], 2006)
The Bible: Survival (Crispin Reece; Tony Mitchell; Christopher Spencer[USA/UK], 2013)
The Book of Daniel (Anna Zielinski[USA], 2013)

I suspect my piece will also mention the 2008 Argentinian film Leonera (Lion's Den) which isn't a modernisation, but simply uses the way that the phrase "going into the Lion's Den" has passed into popular parlance.

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.

Belshazzar's Feast (1905)

Le festin de Balthazar (Belshazzar's Feast - 1905) is one of three short films made by Pathé that were also packaged as the one-reeler Martyrs chrétiens (also 1905), and of the three it is undoubtedly the most interesting and technically accomplished. Whilst the other two films, Les martyrs and Daniel dans la fosse aux lions, are essentially just a more exciting way in which to present lion-tamer footage, Balthazar is marked by an impressive matte shot that allows for both the film's villain and the mysterious hand to appear in the same shot.

It makes for a rather awkward composition of course. The giant hand and the words it writes dominate the left of the screen; Belshazzar's party are squished into the right. The shortness of the footage relies on using a large chez lounge to highlight which character Belshazzar is, not to mention that for this to really pass as a feast for 1000 (Dan 5:1 NRSV) Belshazzar has to be surrounded by courtesans, dancers and drinking buddies for the scene to work. And then of course there is the arrival of the Median army who burst into that same shot through the large doors in the middle.

What's fascinating is that the order in which the cinematic innovations appear to have taken place. In 1905 films were almost entirely composed of long, static mid-shots, as if the cameraman were watching a play. Montage, inter-cutting and close ups were really still a thing of the future. Yet, remarkably, matte shots (including this one which actually utilises a close up) were in use, even though most modern viewers would assume they would be more advanced.

And then there's the use of filters, well known to those familiar with the films of this era, but here swapped in the middle of the scene, with dramatic effect. The "sky" turns from serene blue to a foreboding red at the very moment the hand appears on the wall.

The other interesting point about this film is that the hero of the original text - Daniel - doesn't really make an appearance. Even before Belshazzar has had a chance to get an interpretation of this strange sign, the Medes are upon him and Babylon has fallen.

The BFI synopsis of the film credits Lucien Nonguet as the director and offers the following summary:

DRAMA. Historical. Based on the Old Testament Book of Daniel, Chapter 5. Belshazzar indulges in a lavish feast, surrounded by women, and plied with wine. Suddenly, he perceives a vast, disembodied hand, tracing writing on the wall in a strange language. He is filled with foreboding, and falls back on his couch. A moment later, armed Medes burst in, and carry off the women, and King Belshazzar is slain (123). The End (130 ft).

Campbell and Pitts also discuss the film (p.1)

BELSHAZZAR'S FEAST
1905
France
Pathé
1 reel B/W
Taken from the Book of Daniel, this short theatrical film told of the court of Belshazzar in ancient Babylon and included the Biblical account of the handwriting on the wall. The film was remade, with the same title, by the French Gaumont studio in 1913

Report on Yesterday's "The Ancient World in Silent Cinema II" Event

Whilst I'll be posting a few individual comments on each of the silent Bible films over the next fortnight, I wanted to post some reflections on the day as a whole. The journey down was a dream giving me just enough time to write my review for Pamela Grace's new book "The Religious Film" (also to be posted shortly). Bloomsbury Theatre is just a short walk from St. Pancras station, so I was able to grab a sandwich in the hugely impressive Quaker HQ Friends House before getting back to the theatre in time for the opening session.

UCL's Maria Wyke is one of the two people behind this series of events (the other being Bristol's Pantelis Michelakis) and she gave a helpful introduction to the day's proceedings. I must admit I hadn't fully appreciated quite how complex projecting century old film on modern equipment is, so it was useful to be given a brief overview. There were apologies for the quality of the films, but, in actual fact they were far superior in quality to that which I had imagined. The detail was so much more apparent than on DVD (even when viewed with a projector). That said, in some cases such clarity highlighted the cheapness of the sets. I suppose that the earliest film makers may not have anticipated their films being shown on a large screen (and of course did not have a century of set-craft and location shooting to compare themselves against).

The first session started with A.E. Coleby's comedy Wanted - A Mummy. Whilst only part of the film was available it was very entertaining, and notable that the essence of the double act (tension between a strait-laced individual and his more outgoing relaxed partner; and the man with a plan leading his partner into calamity) was very much in place. I can't help but wondering if Laurel and Hardy might have been influenced by this film.

Next up was La Sposa del Nilo (Bride of the Nile - Italy 1911 - pictured above). Essentially this is a tragedy where a woman is thrown into the Nile to appease the Goddess Isis, much to the dismay of her fiancé. What surprised many of those present was that the man didn't manage to somehow save the day despite his best efforts. I did overhear one woman in the audience point out that if the heroine hadn't fainted so pathetically she could just have swum off! The contrast with the films that were to follow, though, was striking. Here was an angry God who needed appeasing with human sacrifice, and whose followers were so devoted that the hero is unable to save her. It's notable that the film concludes with a statement to the effect that the waters of the Nile returned. Our modern minds rightly ascribe this to coincidence, as would those of the original audience, but it's interesting that viewers would not be quite so unanimous in offering similar explanations for the cause and effect of the events in many biblical films. And of course the tragic ending makes an eloquent argument from silence for a benevolent, interventionist God - the 'true hero' of the rest of the biblical films.

The last of the non-biblical films was no less interesting. La Vergine di Babilonia (The Virgin of Babylon - Italy, 1910) featured the fictional Babylonian monarch Ninia who, like Isis in the previous film, desired a woman who is betrothed. But in contrast to the leading lady of that film, this picture's heroine, Esther, is feisty, determined, strong willed and not afraid to refuse the kings advances. What was of most interest to me about this film was the various way it evoked several stories from the Bible in order to add layers of meaning. Whilst the Bible is clear that Esther was, originally at least, a Babylonian name, one cannot hear it today without thinking of the Jewish girl who became queen of Babylon. The film's plot - where a king desiring a queen uses his men's force before requiring her to audition in some way, but with the end result being the queen gaining power and saving her own, previously threatened, life - bears a great deal of similarity. Likewise Esther's dress is in strong contrast to the other Babylonian woman: it is much more in line with the costumes worn by Jewish women from the Bible films of the period.

The other Bible story that this film calls upon is that of Daniel. Like Daniel Esther sticks to her moral code and is thrown into a den of lions as a result. The Lions refuse their lunch (the intertitle calls it a "miracle of miracles") and the people overthrow Ninia and proclaim Esther their queen, and she returns to her lover Joseph. The closing scenes also see Esther striking Christ-like poses.

Three Bible films followed (Cain et Abel, La Sacra Bibbia, Moïse sauvé des eaux) before a short comfort break. I was dying to ask if I could attempt to take some stills, but didn't quite find the courage / bare-faced cheek. When we returned we were told that we were over-running and that some films were going to be cut, including the two Jephthah's Daughter films. The reason? The projectionist had managed to work out how to show the films at the correct speed (something of a feat given that originally projectors and cameras would have been hand-wound). Whilst in many ways this was a shame, I think it was the correct decision. The chance to see these films as they were meant to be seen was a major benefit, and while I'll have to wait a bit longer to see a film about Jephthah, these films are available to view in the British National Film and Television Archives.

The remainder of the session saw the other two Moses films L'Exode and La vie de Moïse interspersed with The Life of Moses. All of the films on display were given an improvised accompaniment by pianist Stephen Horne, but it was the first of these where his work was at its very best. Improvised accompaniment is an interesting art form. When, as here, it is truly improvised - i.e. the musician has not seen the movie before at all - then the artist is simultaneously both part of the team of filmmakers, and part of the audience. The former is obvious: their work enhances the mood, entertainment and meaning of the film. But it's also true that they are (first time) viewers of the film. Whilst, aside from the odd gasp, chuckle or round of applause) convention dictates that the majority of the audience offer no immediate reaction, the musician acts as our spokesperson, reacting to what they see and swiftly working it into their accompaniment. I suspect that the reason I appreciated his work most - in L'Exode - is because this was also the film I found most startling, but I'll come to that in a day or two. The accompanist also plays another role interpreting the film for us. Music is so evocative (as superbly demonstrated by Christina Ricci's narration in The Opposite of Sex) that the accompanist has the power to change the meaning or mood of the film as well as simply enhancing it. Hence whilst they are part of the film-making team they also stand alone. The other filmmakers are no longer with us: the accompanist has the final word.

Anyway, Horne was excellent throughout, and deserved his many rounds of applause. He mainly used the piano, but also used an electric piano (replete with synth, harp and other sounds) as well as a flute, a piccolo and the unhammered strings of the piano. I can't help wondering if my brother Geoff Page (an Oxford Uni. music graduate) would love to give this kind of thing a try. I might have to try and rig it up next time we meet up.

The afternoon featured two, rather than the advertised three, lectures as Margaret Malamud had been taken ill. In actual fact two was all there was really time for. Indeed Judith Buchanan had to curtail her paper before she had a chance to talk about the Jesus films. Personally, I found her talk the more fascinating of the two. Much of it traced the development of Judith's portrayal in art which, as the wife of an artist, was right up my street. But her relaxed presentation style made her paper all the more enjoyable. It felt like we were being talked to rather than read to.

David Mayer's paper was also very interesting, talking about how architecture and dance in early ancient silent film owed a huge debt to the theatrical plays of the late 19th century, and traced the development of choreography in some of D.W.Griffith's films, including the 1914 Judith of Bethuliah and, of course, Intolerance. Mayer's knowledge was clearly immense, and it was a privilege to hear him speak, though he was hampered somewhat by his PowerPoint presentation. His book Stagestruck Filmmaker: D.W.Griffith and the American Theatre which explores these themes is due for release shortly (contrary to the Amazon site Mayer said it was still awaiting final publication).

After a brief break for tea we were treated to Samson et Dalila, La Reine de Saba, Giuditta e Oloferne, Judith, L'Aveugle de Jérusalem, and Vie De Jesus. The cuts to the advertised programme, as before, enabled the films to be shown at the correct speed and the event to finish on time, which was great news for those of us dashing off to catch trains. Somewhat annoyingly, my train home had been dredged up from the eighties, and didn't include any power points for me to plug my laptop into. Somehow I have to find time to write up my notes on the films before I forget it all.

Anyway, all in all it was a wonderful day out, and I'd like to offer my profound thanks to Maria Wyke, Pantelis Michelakis and everyone who worked to make yesterday happen. It was a fantastic event and I'm sure that the 150-200 in attendance enjoyed it just as much as I did.

Edit: The Bioscope has a great write up of the day's events as well.

Daniel Films Redux

Having discussed a number of films about Daniel earlier in the month, I've now watched a couple of those that I hadn't seen previously.

The Beginners Bible: The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den is a fairly standard cartoon aimed mainly at kids, albeit with the odd joke that might entertain adults. For example, during the incident with Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2, one of the bewildered magi summarises his master's request as "You want us to tell you know what we know so you'll know that we know what you already know?" If shows the following episodes:

Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem - (Dan 1:1-2)
Daniel and friends in Babylon - (Dan 1:3-7; 18-21)
Nebuchadnezzar's dream - (Dan 2:1-49)
Belshazzar's banquet - (Dan 5:1-31)
Daniel in the Lion's Den - (Dan 6:1-28)

So it misses out the incident where Daniel and his friends request a special diet from Dan 1; The story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Dan 3); and the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness (Dan 4). Given that the story is aimed at younger children these omissions all make some kind of sense. Trying to explain diet restrictions to younger children from another, ancient, culture is fairly difficult I imagine. Likewise introducing three other characters whilst Daniel is off screen might be distracting, and there's a fair bit of repetition in the telling of Nebuchadnezzar's second dream.

What's also interesting is the way that this cartoon is called The Story of Daniel in Lions' Den, but it's really a general account of Daniel in Babylon. The Lions' Den story only takes about a quarter of the total run time. The cartoon is fairly well animated, but offers very little insight for grown ups. (Which is obviously fair enough!)

VeggieTales: Daniel in the Lions' Den (on the Where is God when I'm S-S cared DVD) has much in common with the above cartoon. Again it's aimed firmly at kids, although it also includes the odd joke that adults might get more easily. I can't help feeling though that whilst all children will be entertained by this film, the story is more accessible to younger children in the Beginners Bible version. It's a play off because that version will probably not keep the attention of older children as this does however.

Like the Beginners Bible this programme contains scenes from Daniel's life other than the title story:

Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem - (Dan 1:1-2, 6)
Nebuchadnezzar's dream - (Dan 2:1-13, 25-30, 48)
Daniel in the Lion's Den - (Dan 6:1-28)

There are obviously fewer stories here, which partly reflects the shorter running time. The account of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem is shorter still, just the briefest of prologues. The only other story included (other than that of the Lions' Den) is that of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream. Strangely, the content of the dream is never revealed or discussed. It simply forms the motive for the wise men who then plot against Daniel.

Despite the shorter running time the events from Daniel 6 take longer than in the above film, mainly due to it having more songs, and lengthy sequence where Daniel first enters the den.

I also made a few comments on the Daniel entry from the Testament: Bible in Animation series, which also admits the Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and compounds Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams into a single incident. Overall though it's the most complete animated account that I've come across.

Daniel Films

As I mentioned on Tuesday I've been looking into films about Daniel recently. Whilst I knew they were thin on the ground, I've been surprised to find out just how few films about Daniel have been made. In fact, other than the animated versions of the story there have only been four live action films made about Daniel – and three of those date back to the silent era. Indeed, the first two both date back to 1905. Belshazzar's Feast and Daniel in the Lions' Den were both released by the French Pathé company and were just 1 reel long. There's little information available about the two films, but I imagine that they simply focussed on chapters 5 and 6 respectively. It was only 8 years later that the next film about Daniel was released. Daniel (pictured above) was a two reeler by the Vitagraph company, and directed by Fred Thomson. The cast included Charles Kent, Courtney Foote and L. Rogers Lytton. Information on all three of these films is taken from Campbell and Pitts's "The Bible on Film". The only other live action version of this story is an entry in the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series. One of the lesser episodes was called Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar. Whilst it was released on video at some point, there's been no DVD release as of yet, and It's not one that I've seen. It is interesting that it's called Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, rather than say Daniel and Darius. Far and away the most popular story about Daniel is, of course, the one about the lions' den, so it's interesting that the title puts the emphasis elsewhere. That leaves the animated films, the vast majority of which are merely children's cartoons telling the lions' den story. Whilst it's hard to get an exhaustive list of all these children's films, it includes entries in the "Greatest Heroes and Legends of the Bible", "Greatest Adventure Stories from the Bible" and the "Beginners Bible" series (all titled Daniel in the Lions' Den) as well as the Bible Animated Classics: Daniel. Then there's the two Veggie Tales versions of the story. I'm wary of the Veggie Tales series in general. They tend to go so far to exorcise the difficult / violent passages from their stories so that it The two episodes in this series are found on two different DVDs. The first "Daniel in the Lions' Den" appears in Where is God when I'm S-Scared. The other Rack, Shack and Benny deals with the story of Daniel's friends from Daniel 3. The only animated version of this story which is aimed at adults (perhaps more so than children) is Daniel from the "Testament: Bible in Animation" series. I discussed this on Tuesday in greater depth, so anyone wanting to find out more on that film should go there. Finally, the story of Daniel is included as one of the inspirational stories from "Friends and Heroes". The story is actually the first flashback story in the whole series, as it occurs in episode 1. The story starts at the beginning of Daniel 6 with Daniel ascending the steps into Darius' court, and it ends again as Daniel ascends out of the lions den. (Actually there's another shot before the story cuts back to the 1st century AD story, but that functions very much as an epilogue). This is the only CGI telling of Daniel that I'm aware of. I can't help wondering if the story of Daniel will ever get the big screen treatment. There's a chance the Epic Stories of the Bible series that is about to release its version of the Ten Commandments will progress as far as that, but it would be nice to see a live action version of the whole story. After a strong showing in the first 20 years of motion pictures Daniel's story seems to have been ignored, or rather consigned to simply a children's story.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Daniel

My church is looking at Daniel next term so I thought I'd make a couple of posts about portrayals of Daniel in film. There have actually only been a handful - and the most significant is the version that is part of the Testament: The Bible in Animation series (1996).

The series used different animation styles for each episode, here, as with the Creation and Flood episode, they animators used oil paint on glass. This creates an unusual effect, which is certainly very unlike anything most children are used to. That said the Testament series has always set it's sights on a wider audience than just children, hence why this production stands out from the whole host of cartoon about Daniel in the Lions' Den.

Its use here is interesting as Daniel narrative is told as a story within a story. A mother tells her son the tale of Daniel as a way of giving him hope. This contrasts with most of the series where the stories are usually experienced first hand. So the washy animation reflects the fact that the story is presented less concretely than some of the other stories. It also leads to a rather gruesome appearance to some of the less child friendly moments in the story. The non-realistic animation makes these shots more permissible, yet paradoxically more disturbing at the same time.

Watching the "Testament" series over ten years after it was first made, it becomes apparent that many of the actors who were involved have subsequently risen to greater prominence. In this case it's Bill Nighy who now has a great deal of Hollywood experience behind him. He plays Belshazzar, who, bizarrely, begins the Daniel sequence as an intrigued friend of Daniel's.

Episodes from the Book of Daniel included in the film are as follows:

[extra-biblical episode - intro]
Jerusalem Captured - (Dan 1:)
Daniel and his Friends Train - (Dan 1:3-21)
The King Dreams - (Dan 2:1-30)
Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd Dream - (Dan 4:10b-27)
The King's Dream Fulfilled - (Dan 4:28-35)
The Writing on the Wall - (Dan 5:1-31)
[extra-biblical episode - Start of Darius's Reign]
Daniel and the Lions' Den - (Dan 6:1-28)
[extra-biblical episode - conclusion]

I found the character rather hard to relate to. I'd always thought of Daniel as humble but steadfast whereas here he often comes across as obstinate. By contrast, King Darius is shown as fairly weak, although that is largely as a result of the biblical material.

The most notable omission in this film is the jump from chapter 2 to chapter four. The script is able to do this because of Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams. Strangely it is the first, and most popular of these - the dream of the statue with feet of clay - which is omitted. The script starts off with the events of chapter 2 with Nebuchadnezzar having a dream that he wants his Magi to tell him as well as interpret. But when Daniel correctly declares and interprets the dream it has become the one from Daniel 4 (where Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a tree). It's an innovative way of editing the story, although as a result it pushes Daniel's friends into the wings even more.

In addition to this, there are a number of deviations from the Biblical accounts. Firstly, Daniels faces a common enemy throughout the film in the form of the Chief Magus. Secondly, when Daniel's friends refuse to eat the meat provided they make do with little more than water, rather than vegetables and water as the Bible claims.

The other deviation are fairly minor: as Nebuchadnezzar goes mad there is no voice from heaven; Daniel is present when the hand writes on the wall, and Daniel prays that those who set him up in chapter 6 are saved. But this is acceptable artistic licence in the whole.