House of David (2025) s1e04

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

Having anointed David in episode 3, Samuel now finds himself on the run. This isn't something that is specifically mentioned in Samuel/Chronicles, but it's an interesting idea: Samuel's relationship with Saul ends dramatically after Saul's victory over King Agag and the Amalekites and Samuel's prophecy against Saul and his line. Indeed the passage ends saying "Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again" (1 Sam 15:35). Moreover, Samuel fades to the peripheries of the book that bears his name, appearing in only one other incident (1 Sam 19) before he dies unceremoniously at the start of ch.25. His final appearance is as a spirit in ch.28.

In addition to this Samuel remained a popular figure. When he dies, the text says "all Israel had mourned for him". It's reasonably likely, then, that someone so openly opposed to the king could only survive by going on the run. That said Saul also seems scared of Samuel, so perhaps he left him alone and hoped he would not stir things up further.

The idea of a prophet being on the run from his monarch have spoken truth to power in this way, also evokes another prophet from the Hebrew Bible: Elijah. I think the series will want to keep Samuel alive a little longer, for continuity purposes, so it'll be interesting to see if any more parallels are drawn between Samuel and Elijah as things continue. Samuel's fears are soon realised when his companion is murdered. He and his wife go into hiding.

Samuel is not the only one who fear's Saul's reprisal. Jesse is concerned, especially given the family's outsider status. But it's Eliav who truly realises the danger that Samuel's words have brought to David, and seeks to protect his brother. I like Eliav's portrayal in this series, he's in many ways a better father than Jesse, tough but sensitive and compassionate.

Meanwhile, David is being rapidly integrated into Saul's court. Saul's mental health is continuing to decline so his people are trying to find ways to soothe him. It's actually Queen Ahinoam who brings David in as a musician, though it's clear that Mychal has recommended him. The chemistry between them is still strong and they get a scene alone later on where Mychal reads him the words from The Song of Moses in Deut. 32. Here wish to have it made into a song soon comes true as David sets an-oldie-but-a-goodie to  a a new tune that not only impresses Mychal but also her dad, who calls it "beautiful".

Incidentally David's costume here is interesting. The blue sash over the white undergarment is something Jesus is often shown as wearing in religious art (most recently in The Chosen).

At the same time, Eshbaal, Saul's second son (apparently only 10 months younger than Jonathan) starts trying to help his father regain his popularity by suggesting a rather bread-and-circuses approach, only with less emphasis on the bread. No sooner has his suggestion been rebuffed when an elder of the tribe of Dan breaks into the throne room enraged because Eshbaal has "defiled" his daughter "Dinah"

This passage has stoked a bit of debate on the show's Facebook discussion group and there are a few different points here. Firstly, Eshbaal/Ishbaal is an alternative name for Ishbosheth, another son of Saul who briefly becomes King of Israel (but not, apparently, Judah) after Saul's death. Translations tend to choose one or the other, but there is a split with the more liberal/scholarly NRSV (and variants) going with Ishbaal and more conservative translations (KJV, NIV, ESV) going with Ish-bosheth. Given that the show seems like more of a faith-based/ evangelical film it's interesting to see it go with Eshbaal, because that version of the name is obviously some kind of acknowledgement to one of the Hebrew Bible's rival gods and its use here suggests Saul allegiance, on some level, to Baal.

It's fascinating how the Bible deals with Baal worship through the Hebrew Bible narratives. It's clear that at the time many works within it are being editing down, worship of God (Adonai or Hashem as the series prefers) is the dominant position and is in the ascendency, with God's proponents trying to exorcise worship of other gods entirely. Yet at the same time we see this tendency across hundreds of years of history. Perhaps it waxed and waned, but it's clear from the Bible that worship of Baal and other deities ran (to some degree) alongside worship of Hashem for centuries. This isn't something people are always keen to acknowledge, perhaps reflected in the translation choices, so it's interesting to see it play out here.

Another name that carries certain resonances is that of Eshbaal's victim (in the show), Dinah. For those not familiar with the murkier sections of Genesis, in the Bible Dinah is the daughter of Jacob who gets raped and has to marry her rapist, only for her brothers to kill him and massacre his tribes people (Gen 34). Some have worried this might be confusing, or just seems inappropriate, but personally I like this callback, deliberately connecting the two stories in viewers minds. I'm curious as to why they are trying to get people to recall the biblical Dinah story, though. Perhaps it's to subtly suggest that Esh-Baal has actually raped this woman. Perhaps all will become clearer as the show progresses

I also think it's great that Eshbaal is being developed as a character here because so often things are just presented as David taking over from Saul with a fairly straightforward transition, whereas that's not the case in the Bible. Ishbosheth is King of Israel for two years before David (who is simultaneously the King of Judah) takes over. There's actually a neat moment here where David & Eshbaal – unaware of their futures – pass each other on the road and acknowledge each other.

Is it significant, then, that Eshbaal is being portrayed as "the black sheep of the family", (and possibly even worse than that, a rapist). Making Eshbaal bad might make David's takeover of the northern tribes more acceptable, although David himself calls Ishbosheth "righteous" (2 Sam. 4:11) and executes his murderers, so somewhere along the line there may be some theological gymnastics. Surprisingly, there's little if any mention of any wrongdoing by Ishbosheth, in the Bible. His fate in this episode is also interesting. How will they resolve this?

House of David (2025) s1e03

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

If episode 2 was content to take it's time to build up the characters, the this third episode ("The Anointing", directed by Alexandra La Roche) is where things really get going. There are some of the key moments in this and La Roche's direction really delivers some great imagery to underline everything that's going on.

It all starts with Saul having nightmares about the fate of Jonathan. Of Samuel saying he won't be king and then a premonition of Jonathan being killed in battle. Even here there's a great moment where Saul's crown falls to the ground and he goes to pick it up, only for Samuels' staff to prevent him. Saul still half lost in his dreams throws a spear and kills a young servant. The family make up a story to fob his family off and to prevent news of Saul's madness from spreading, but they know they're in trouble.

Alternative religion

Keen to save her husband (and perhaps herself) from his demise, his wife Queen Ahinoam (Ayelet Zurer) turns to alternative spirituality. She speaks first to Abner, who we discover comes from Endor (a place whose name will be familiar to some as the place name attached to the witch Saul uses to try and contact Samuel later int he story) because his mother has been known to dabble in the dark arts. But Abner steadfastly refuses: Saul has banished religion other than worshipping the one true God.

Ahinoam, is tapping into the witch-wife archetype here, channelling other biblical wives such as Jezebel, (and perhaps Eve/Lillith) whose devotion to gods other than YHWH causes their husbands to wander from the true faith. And, of course, she soon wears down Abner. Despite his protestations that he has turned his back on all his prior association with other forms of religion, he manages to locate someone (another woman, never the men in these things!) who can help and pretty soon the three of them are indulging in a occult-cliche mishmash ceremony to undo Samuel's curse on Saul.

I'm in two minds about this scene. On the one hand we have very little idea about what actual ceremonies might have gone on in dark alleys and backrooms in ancient Israel. We know, from both archaeology and the Bible itself, that other forms of religion existed among the Hebrew people for centuries after when David was supposed to have lived. At times they were clearly rife and while the writers of Samuel-Kings and of Chronicles try and paint a world where everyone accepts that YHWH was the one true god, it's also equally clear that theirs is often a minority report: Kings keep popping p and not being faithful to God.

Yet on the other hand we do know a bit about Baal worship (and Baal is specifically cited here), but without really getting into the sources I'm not sure it looked much like this. I think this is forgivable though, because this ritual is not presented as in anyway mainstream, and it's just fictional elaboration. And seen in that light it's over-the-topness is kinda fun.

Goliath

The same could also be said about how we encounter Goliath in this episode. And, in a way (because we've only really seen him briefly in a flash-forward right at the start of episode one) this is our introduction to him. 

Tired of getting routed by King Saul and the Israelites, the five Philistine kings got together in the last episode and now we see one of them, Achish (Alexander Uloom), entering the Valley of the Giants to try and persuade the giants to join them. There are some striking visuals here. Here first as Achish and his companion stand atop the mountains before entering the Valley of the Giants, the scenery looks spectacularly rugged, huge and forbidding. Then as they approach the giants' fortress he passes a cone of skulls, perhaps a little too neat to be the handiwork of someone who rips bodies apart with his bare hands, but it's memorable nevertheless. Then the gated / walled entrance to the giants' lair which captures a little of the start of The Return of the Jedi (1983)* and then finally the moment when Achish finally meets Goliath. I was tempted for a moment then to write "comes, face to face with Goliath", but of course he doesn't because Goliath is roughly twice his height (as pictured above). There's some great lighting in this scene as well. I also kind of like the dialogue as Achish tries to enter the lair/fortress/cave, essentially if you really want to come in you can, but nobody ever really does.

The Anointing

As it happens, Achish is not the only one who is recruiting. Samuel has also heard from God and heads over to Bethlehem to visit Jesse's children. this is the first solidly biblical incident we've had for sometime, but the series has put a lot of backstory into making these scenes work. Firstly there's the way Samuel is viewed both with respect and fear. Secondly, Jesse being an outsider among the village elders because of fathering a son (David) outside of wedlock, and David being an outsider among his family, for being that son. It's an elaborate back story with little precedent in the text itself, but it does work to make the biblical story of David being left out of the original line-up make sense. Moreover, it doesn't do that by smoothing over the cracks and making everyone see heroic because they're faithful to God and in the Bible. Jesse is not, so far a good character in this. Yes the death of David's mother has hit him hard, but the show is not prepared to let him off for that and Samuel's unimpressed.

It's actually fairly rare to have a proper scene of Samuel anointing David. David's integration into the royal family is kind of awkward in the Bible. Is he brought in as a harpist to soothe Saul's moods, or as  boy dropping off lunch to his brothers who is so incensed by his people's inaction that he signs up to fight the giant? Plus also the part of the story that the filmmakers usually want to tell is elsewhere, so this disjointed start, often doesn't quite fit into a smooth story arc. Nor does the fact that David's most famous moment happens at the start of the story. So some filmmakers show the Goliath scene in flashback, or as stripped of the other part of David's origin story.

Here though, they have a whole series, which I suspect is going to end on the fight itself, which means that this season is really about how David gets onto that battlefield. Set in that context the multiple origin stories could kind of work.

Anyway, there was something about the way this episode, and indeed the programme so far, builds up towards this moment that really made me appreciate the contours of the story. David really is an outsider, he's a boy compared to his tall, warrior-king-like sovereign. The line about "man looks at outside appearance but God looks at the heart" (1 Sam 16:7) has both a spiritual resonance, but also a dramatic/literary one about the rise to prominence of someone who goes against the grain of previous post-holders. The long-overdue recognition of the person who has been rejected for so long.

The scene itself is interesting as well. Eliab as the oldest, most experienced fighter has been brought more into the spotlight by the series-makers than his siblings. We know that he, like his prince, is tough but fair. He's sometimes brusque with his kid brother, but he takes a shoulder to the arrow while trying to help him sign up. When Samuel sings his praises, it strikes me that this is how I feel about this character, to some degree at least. David's other brothers get a rather shorter shrift. Sons 2 & 3 get a mention and some suggestion that they've done OK, surviving in the army and so one. Son 4 though doesn't even get mentioned. When the camera briefly cuts to him I wonder if I've even seen him yet in this series. He looks like a cross between a male model and a Chippendale and Samuel skips past him as if he hasn't even joined the army yet as he's so busy on shooting assignments.

Anyway, by the time Samuel gets to the end of the line he realises that the one he is looking for isn't there. David is sent for and once we get to the moment we know the momentum slips a little, but this sequence did make me think, or at least, feel differently about this part of the story.

Wrapping up

There's another sub-plot that I won't go into here, but again we do see here how the show's strategy of leaving the worst of the violence to the imagination is really effective. Anyway, just as David is being anointed there's a bit of a surprise: Saul is back on his game again. While there's a hint to the viewer that perhaps he's not as well as he appears, he's now back, clothed in stately gear and striding through a crowd of his supporters in his courtroom. There are some anxious looks, but whatever Ahinoam and Abner have bought into seems to have 'worked', at least to some degree. The scene more or less ends with the above shot: Saul, on the throne, seemingly being endorsed by the light streaming through the windows. And so there's a parallel, or rather a conflict, being set up between the existing king and his chosen and anointed rival, though neither man has seriously considered their relationship to one another.

The final point I want to make is that in the original release (at least) episodes 1-3 were released together on the first night, and then one episode was release per week after that. I'm keen to know at what stage that decision was made, because the way these three episodes pan out perfectly fits that structure. At the end of this original trilogy the stage is set, we know who these characters are and how some of them think and feel and act, and groundbreaking developments have set the platform for the rest of the series. And while they are all quite good on their own, it's the way that these three quite differently-arranged episodes combine to work together, that really consolidates a good start to the season. It creates a suitable launching pad for the rest of the show as it now starts to arrive at the reduced rate of one episode per week.

==========

*There was another moment that seemed to evoke something of the original Star Wars films, but I can't remember what it was now.

House of David (2025) s1e02

This post is part of a series looking at Amazon Prime's show House of David (2025). I'm trying to post them as soon as possible after the show airs, so keep checking back. There are a few spoilers in in what follows.

Having given us a fairly good introduction to the major players in episode 1 of House of David, episode 2 ("Deep Calls to Deep") helps us get to know some of the other leading characters. We met Mychal (Saul's daughter), Abner (Saul's ...enforcer?) and Eliab (David's eldest brother) in the first episode, but all become a bit more prominent in this episode.

But before any of that, we are going back even further into the past, to be introduced to a new character, Nitzevet (Siir Tilif ), David's mother and to the time just before she was killed. Biblically-speaking even Nitzevet's name is from later sources, so this whole sequence is a combination of later tradition and imagination, but it's a good way to introduce us to what makes David (and to a lesser extent Jesse) tick. Nitzavet and David walk out to see an usual star configuration when a man starts rebuking her, so she tells him that her son's name will be remembered long after the man is forgotten.

This is one of two moments where Nitzevet is shown to be particularly in tune with God. Shortly after this prophecy she recites words that are familiar to many from the Psalms ("You knit me together in my mother's womb" Psalm 139:13-4). I find this interesting because it's a fairly consistent trope found in many Jesus films that his mother is shown teaching him some part of what will become known as his teaching, as the filmmakers are doing similarly with Nitzevet. 

We also find out that at least part of Jesse's anger towards his son is because it was David's disobedience that caused his mother to die at the paws of the lion (the one that David kills at the end of the opening episode). We then return to the "present" (or what sees to be the show's present) where David's heroics get a mixed reception when he returns to the house. Eventually though, David manages to persuade Eliab (Davood Ghadami) to help him become a soldier. And so the two of them go on a trek and find some time to get to know each other.

The only real biblical story we get here is Saul having problems with his mental health. This was actually one of the best bits of the David-related stories in the 2013 series The Bible. Here Saul's lack of wellbeing has been brought on by Samuel's words. Mychal (Indy Lewis, pictured above) is nursing him and she's pleased when he regains consciousness, but is clearly worried about the bigger picture.

Also worried is Abner (Oded Fehr) who suggests flexing the army to keep Samuel in line. But Saul knows the truth. As revered as he might be, Samuel, as Israel's former judge, is also popular and his words hold sway with the people too.We also meet Mychal's sister Merib, and Joav/Joab the soldier Mychal likes to flirt with

Lastly, we also get to see how the five Philistine kings react to news of Saul's unexpected victory over Agag. These scenes are interesting precisely because the biblical authors seem to have so little interest in them. The Philistines seem to have posed an existential threat over the Hebrews for several generations, but aside from the occasional moment of dialogue, there is very little for the screenwriters to go on.

For example, the council scene here, which is pure fabrication (not that there's anything wrong with that) could be a reasonable reflection of how these men related to one another. I'm reminded of the scenes with the five families discussing external threats in The Godfather (1972), or it might not resemble things even in the slightest. We just don't know.

I think the grand multi-storey buildings we see both in Philistine territory and in Israelite territory seems a little more built up than I would expect from a couple of nomadic nations. The seafarers turned settlers on the one hand, and the former slaves turned desert wanders on the other seemed to have quite quickly developed the kind of expertise to build such impressive architecture. And yes that's a very pedantic nitpick, and the show and its creator have been quite clear that they are trying to evoke something a bit more mythological, which means they deserve a degree of latitude, but also, I seemingly can't resist pointing these things out.

In any case, a show exploring these characters – barely even two-dimensional in the text, even if they might not get significantly more developed as the show progresses – has a lot of potential to see things from the other side. It's a blank canvas, of course, and it's difficult to know what created the vacuum that saw both the Hebrews migrating to the area from the south at a similar time as the Philistines arrived from the west, and how the Philistines might've viewed the Israelites. Certainly the presence of another group of warlike people trying to settle in the area will have caused some consternation.

There are two scenes that particularly cut through, both involve one of the lead characters entering into a walled city for the first time.

The first of of these is a wedding scene in Bethlehem. David is playing his lyre as part of the wedding band, but he does manage to speak to and enchant Mychal. The chemistry between them bodes well for the development of their relationship later. It's interesting too that Mychal dances here - in spite of Joav's protestations, yet soon she will object to David's dancing when the Ark of the Covenant enters Jerusalem. There's a couple of mentions in this scene of David being a musician and/or a poet. I wonder how (else?) the program will develop that?

The second such scene is Eliab and David reaching the desolate village that Jonathan investigated in part one. There's some nice paralleling between this scene and the earlier one: the sense of something dreadful having happened, the camera movements and shot framing creating a nifty call back to Jonathan's discovery of those same sights.

Speaking of sights, we get a couple of drone shots here of the scenery, which looks fantastic and somewhat different for a biblical epic. It turns out that rather than being shot at Atlas studios in Ouarzazate, Morocco or Capernaum studios in Forth Worth Texas, House of David is filmed in Greece (according to Variety). It's nice to see a different location used, particularly one as striking as this. I think the landscape also adds nicely to that mythological feel.

Overall then, the story doesn't move on greatly in this episode. Instead the episode spends time investing in the characters. This is a tricky job because there are a lot of them and we need to have a good sense of them before the action really gets going. So my hunch is that its worth investing the time here, even if it's a little slow. Hopefully the action, or rather the biblical scenes, will pick up a bit more in episode three.

House of David (2025) s1e01

This is the first in a series of posts exploring House of David
You can view them all here. (Image courtesy of Prime Video)

On Friday night I wrote a review of the first part of this series and then, just as I was about to hit publish, got struck by a Blogger glitch that magically deleted all your work in a way that means that you can't get it back. So apologies that this isn't very good, but I've now missed the slot I had to write this and the details are fading fast so this is a little hasty.

---------------

Having recently acquired rights to The Chosen Amazon Prime have just released a new series on Jesus' most famous ancestor, King David. While this stands as an entirely separate production, the connections between the two go well beyond that. Series creator Jon Erwin, best known for a couple of relatively big faith-based hit films I Can Only Imagine (2018) and The Jesus Revolution (2023) is friends with The Chosen's showrunner Dallas Jenkins and even admitted to consulting with him on House of David in an interview with my friends Peter Chattaway. And The Chosen's Jonathan Roumie played The Jesus Revolution's charismatic leader. Meanwhile Erwin's co-director Jon Gunn is best known for another popular faith-based film The Case for Christ (2017).

Yet right from the start House of David brings in other creative influences as well. The show has a very different feel to The Chosen. In that interview with Peter Erwin also talks about the mythical elements of the story and I think he does well to capture that here. There's something about it that seems more, well Old Testament.* Goliath, for example, is not only a giant, but one whose height is significantly greater than the 9'9" mentioned in most translations.^‡ It's apt I suppose because there's a sense in which the characters here are all slightly larger than life. Characteristics and events are exaggerated, in a way that wouldn't work in something like The Chosen.

 

Another influence on the series, which also adds to this sense of the mythical, is the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03). There's a certain circularity here: Tolkein was influenced by the larger than life stories in the Hebrew Bible and the informed his novel, which informed the film adaptations, which is now back influencing this adaptation of David. Another moment that gives these opening sequences a more mythical quality is that some of the battle shots are shown as silhouettes against a coloured background, which was a technique Darren Aronofsky used in his mythic-feeling Noah (2014).

These influences show from the very earliest scenes. The series starts with the first part of the famous fight between David (Michael Iskander) and Goliath (Martyn Ford), before cutting back to David's days as a shepherd boy. This is quite a smart move. While you might imagine that much of the film's Christian audience would know and be interested in some of the other events of David's life, to the casual, less-acquainted viewer, they might only know the David and Goliah story. This potentially draws them in before going back to build the characters.

The story goes back to Bethlehem months earlier and finds David looking after sheep rather than planning on slaying giants. The biggest surprise here is that David is something of a social outcast (he's even defined as such in the opening narration). It turns out that while David is still the son of Jesse (Louis Ferrera) he is only the half brother of Eliab and the others. And while David's mother, Nitzevet (Siir Tilif) has been killed by a lion, that is not the reason he is only a half brother: He's called a "bastard" and described as "illegitimate".

This has been one of the show's most talked about points in the discussion I've seen, as it seems like a bit of a curve ball. It's something that comes out of passages in the Psalms (51:5 "in sin did my mother conceive me." and 69:8 "I am a foreigner to my own family") and was developed in Jewish tradition such that the Babylonian Talmud (Baba Batra 91a) to say Jesse and her were not married. You can read more on that here. The lion has returned to threaten both Jesse's stock and his household and David decides enough is enough and heads off to seek his revenge.

Meanwhile the reigning King Saul (Ali Suliman) has become popular with most (though not Jesse who complains about him in a similar fashion to Samuel's warnings about having a king in the text). He's just defeated the apparently cannibalistic Amalekites and their "blood drinking" King Agag (more larger than life exaggeration of the text). To Saul's mind the utter defeat of the Amalekites and way he has divided the spoils between his men constitute "destroying" them, as he was instructed. 

Unfortunately that's not how God sees things. On this occasion he's in follow-things-literally mode, so he instructs Samuel (Stephen Lang^†) to bring his word to Saul. I won't spoil the climax of the episode for those who haven't seen it, but it makes Samuel the most fascinating character in this opening episode. "Old Testament" in every sense of the word. We have no idea what Samuel would have worn or how he would have looked, but as he stands there with his long white plaited beard, blood-splatted face and defiant stare he makes quite the impression.

The other character who has a significant role in this opening episode is Jonathan (Ethan Kai), who's portrayed as a handsome but wholesome warrior prince. He's one of his father's most trusted military leaders, who Saul sends to investigate an apparent slaughter in an outlying village some way into Saul's territory. There's a pivotal scene here where we see both his tough side, and his sensitivity in how he treats a young boy who is one of the few survivors of the massacre. The scene also reveals a huge bloody hand-print a long way up a wall, foreshadowing the arrival of a foe who has apparently ripped apart some of the bodies with his bare hands.

It's interesting that the actual massacre itself takes place off camera. Partly, I imagine, this is down to budgetary constraints. Such scenes are expensive and complicated to film. But actually I think this aesthetic works well for the series. Back in 2016, I wrote a chapter about David in film for the book The Bible in Motion which I ended by looking at the (then) most recent on-screen David from 2013's The Bible. While the David episode of that series was not the most extreme example, the series seemed to go out of its way to introduce some fairly extreme gratuitous extra-biblical violence.

Now House of David is not made for kids, and people that don't like onscreen violence should be cautious, but I do think the violence that is such an integral part of this story (that Old Testament vibe again) is handled really well, in this episode at least. There is violence, and it's clear that it's a violent time and context, but a lot of the worst moments are kept off-screen or out of shot. The camera doesn't seem to dwell on the violence. It's reminiscent of the way Hitchcock shot the shower-scene in Psycho (1960) without ever showing the knife going into the body.

All in all, then, this is quite a positive first instalment, which actually makes me keen to see the rest of series. We'll see how that bears up as the series progresses, but hopefully it can build on the promise here and give this collection of stories the kind of treatment they really deserve.

===================

*Whilst I usually prefer the term Hebrew Bible, in the modern vernacular being a bit "Old Testament" has come to convey a sort of larger than life violence in some circles, so I'm using that term in the relevant places on this occasion.  

‡ Though the more reliable manuscripts suggest this was originally 6'9" a similar height to Saul.

† I assume this is not the author of "The Bible on the Big Screen", but it would be fun if it were. 

David: A King's Calling (2025)

I'm planning on reviewing a few short biblical films in the next few months, first of which is the newly released David: A King's Calling (watch it here), written and directed by brothers Kaleb and Kyler Cook. With Amazon Prime's House of David landing next month (more about that from Peter Chattaway) the timing seems perfect and as the first chapter I ever had published in an academic was on films about King David, I thought I'd write a short review.

It turns out that this isn't primarily a film about David, but about the prophet Samuel, played here by Steve Shermett best known for his work as Josiah on The Chosen. As such the film very much relies on his performance because this is not an epic movie about great battles and huge kingdoms: it's a small intimate film about connecting with God. It takes a few small verses from smack in the middle of the first Book of Samuel (15:34-16:3) and really digs deep into the feelings and emotions of that monumental moment.

Those who know me well, will know that this is the kind of concept I love, taking a relatively obscure moment and exploring it through film and what's more I think the film handles that really well. Shermett's performance and the writing, editing and camera positioning really do give a feel of what it's like to pray and to attempt hear from God. Not many people retreat into the wilderness like Samuel does here (evoking a similar experience by David's most famous descendant), but anyone who has brought things before God over an extended or intense will relate to what the film portrays.

However, there's a danger that such comments undermine the great technical work that goes on here. The concept is simple and the team relatively small, but it's clearly a labour of love by two filmmakers who know what they're doing. For a short film, there considerable number of different shots, and these don't come in the classic Hollywood shot-reverse-shot style. Indeed almost the opposite is true: the camera rarely returns to an earlier proximity/angle/location/time of day and yet the continuity never suffers. What results is a sort of consistent dynamism which both captures the passing of time but still, somehow, dwelling in the moment. 

There are a few shots when this naturalistic kind of montage makes way for special effects, but for me, these are among the film's weaker moments. For me it's the quieter, intimate moments where it feels it connects to something; touches something spiritual even. And while the tech-laden finale brings a certain sense of closure to proceedings, it's the quieter moments earlier on that really linger in the memory.

Absalon (Absalom, 1912)

Henri Andréani was just an actor when Pathé's "promoted [him] from within its ranks" to the role of co-director under Ferdinand Zecca.¹ At the time the market for 'respectable' material such as biblical films was growing rapidly. Gaumont, Vitagraph and a number of lesser known (mainly Italian) studios had all released films on biblical subjects such that despite Pathé's early Passion Plays, and a handful of New Testament films they were losing ground. Pathé's strategy had been to create/acquire various new 'Art' brands/subsididiaries such as SCAGL (Société cinématographique des auteurs et gens de lettres), Film d'Art and Filme d'Art Italiana ².

Having learned from Zecca (who had previously co-directed the 1902-05 Passion Play La Vie et passion de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, and directed its 1907 remake), Andréani's first solo effort was David et Goliath (1910) before he went on to make films about Moses, Cain and St. Stephen, but he returned to the story of David in 1911 with David et Saül and with La Mort de Saül the following year. 

Given Andréani's penchant for the Bible's more visually striking acts of violence - Andréani is the only director to have given us Jael driving a tent peg through Sisera's skull, and also gives us Goliath's head on a spike, Cain caving in his brother's head and one of the few versions of Jephthah's daughter - it was only a matter of time before his continued adaptation of the David narratives tackled Absalom. For those unfamiliar with the story, Absalom is one of David's sons who started a rebellion against his father after his half-brother raped his sister. Sadly, he proves to be more of a politician than a warrior and when the battle with his father's forces starts to go against him, he flees into the woods and gets caught in a tree by his hair and is stabbed by David's general Joab.

The film largely follows this narrative (there's more in the Bible, but, like Andréani I've not gone into all the details. You can read the story for yourself in 2 Sam 13.1–19.8). The main difference occurs at the start. Despite Andréani's apparent relish for grizzly deaths, he omits Amnon's rape of Tamar. Instead Absalom's motivation derives from David choosing Solomon to succeed him even though Absalom is the eldest. This is a bit of conflation. By the time David appoints Solomon, Absalom is long since dead and it is David's next eldest son Adonijah who misses out to Solomon and starts a rebellion. (The scene is covered in Solomon and Sheba (1959) featuring George Sanders as Adonijah).

In any case, this is the scene with Absalon (also known as A Prince of Israel) begins. The composition strongly echoes that of the battle between David and Goliath in Andréani's earlier film with the low camera, looming figures and the depth of the shot, but the scenery is very different. Solomon is still  child. Absalom cuts a pretty hefty figure. Of all the characters in the Bible none are described as thoroughly as Absalom. Not only are we told that "in all Israel there was no one to be praised so much for his beauty as Absalom"  and that he was without blemish (2 Sam 14:25), but also that he only cut his hair once a year and that it weighed "two hundred shekels" (2 Sam 14:26) – about 2kg according to the Good News Bible. Perhaps the film was meant to be set shortly after that annual trip to the barbers, but it's fair to say this is not how I pictured him.

However, the casting is interesting for another reason. I think Absalom might be played by Louis Ravet who starred as Goliath in Andréani's earlier film. Meaning he Ravet had pretty much cornered the market in playing enemies of King David. Ravet's is credited in the intertitles to David and Goliath as being from the Comédie Française - the world's oldest active theatre company. Ravet was more or less simultaneously involved in various productions of Racine's "Athalie" at the Comédie Française while appearing in a string of historical films for Pathé, particularly working with Andréani ³. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his build, he also took the lead in Capellani, Zecca and Andréani's Samson (1908).

In film-making terms Andréani had moved on significantly since the start of his David series. Here there's a little more insight into the motivations of the characters, though not to the extent we find in La Mort du Saul. More significantly we see a far greater cast. There are a number of crowd scenes as Absalom puts himself about gaining popularity while undermining David and fomenting rebellion. perhaps the biggest spectacle here is the battle scene (pictured above). It would be interesting to compare Andréani's crowds with one of its contemporaries Enrico Guazzoni's Quo Vadis? (1912/3) for Cines. Certainly they are more sizeable than those in D.W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia a year or two later. Andréani also uses a cut to make the start of the battle larger. The result is what looks like a rather odd panning shot. It starts on one set of advancing soldiers, only to pan away to empty space, presumably to enable an invisible cut while the extras move to the other side of the imminent conflict and charge in the other way. Either way the next shot (above) - of soldiers in hand to hand combat looks very impressive, and there's a depth of field on display here which really makes the battle look huge.

Indeed Andréani's use of the 3D space here is a significant advance on David and Goliath. See for example the shot below of two men sent by David's spy Hushai, peeling off from Absalom's marching forces and cross (the River Jordan?) to warn their King. It very effectively tells the story with the river clearing marking the distance between Absalom's forces and David's spies. Their prominence in the shot reinforcing the fact that these are the good guys. (Though Absalom is portrayed relatively moderately in the film).

As with many films revolving around an iconic moment ⁴, a significant part of how it is judged depends on how it handles that moment. Here's it's a little disappointing. This is in part because the first time I remember hearing this story it was Absalom's hair (specifically) that got caught in the tree, rather than just his head as the text says (2 Sam 18:9). I was probably a teenager and the preacher in question was from a free/ independent/ conservative evangelical church and used the story as a warning against vanity. Doubtless the idea that Absalom's fate was an apt punishment for his vanity persists in some circles.

However, this is to take things quite a way beyond the text. Firstly it only says "head" and there seems to be no connection in the writer's mind between the two. Perhaps the further you get from the story the more appealing the connections seems. As Daniel Lavery points out in this quirky reworking of the story, "if Absalom’s heavy hair were caught in the limbs of the terebinth tree, he would have only to cut it to free himself."⁵ Moreover, the text has plenty of bad things to say about Absalom, but it doesn't criticise him for being vain, nor does anyone view the accident which led to his execution as being an act of God. 

In any case, here Absalom's hair is not long enough to get accidentally caught in a passing tree while fleeing a battle, and, as you can see from the .gif below, it doesn't really show him as getting his head caught either. There's an attempt at an impressive stunt. Absalom/Ravet grabs at the tree as his mule goes under it. It must have been fairly difficult, but it never looks anything other than a man hanging from a tree with his arms. It's difficult to know if audiences would have been impressed by this at the time. I suspect not because while movie stunt work, like the rest of cinema, was in its infancy, it was well enough established in the theatre that it's unlikely anyone was as impressed as they would have been by some of Méliès' camera trickery. After he's cut down there's some sort of plait that's left swinging as the soldiers ride on. Was this deliberately included as part of his hair (in which case how did it get caught?) or some part of his apparel? Or was it just part of the stunt that was left, a little carelessly on display afterwards?

Joab stabs the dangling Absalom ("exactly as stabby as we could wish" in Fritzi Kramer's words) and his men hack him down and carry him to David.⁶ It works dramatically, but it does mean that one of the few Black characters in the Bible – an unnamed Cushite – is excluded. Having been marginalised in the text by not having their name mentioned, they are cut out of this film adaptation entirely. The final shot shows David morning for his son rather than celebrating the victory, while Joab looks on disdainfully.

It's interesting how the final shot in many ways mirror the first. David showering affection on one of his son's in the middle of the screen, unaware of the extent to which it is irritating one of those close to him who is shown on the left of the screen demonstrating visible signs of their annoyance. While Joab continues to serve David the incident with Absalom seems to have been the start of a rift between him and David, which led to Joab eventually being replaced as David's commander and David advising his son and appointed successor Solomon to have Joab killed, advice Solomon takes. The film nicely captures that cycle.

Absalom appears in a handful of films about David, particularly The Story of David (1976), the Richard Gere vehicle King David (1985) and the Bible Collection's David (1997), but they tend to be ruined by terrible wigs failures an a failure to empathise with the character or give him any sense of depth. In a way, this portrayal of Absalom avoids those pitfalls, mainly because even though this is in some ways a continuation of Andréani's David series, the film-makers are happy to make Absalom centre stage. Admittedly, the acting is in that stagey style (which people assume typifies acting in the silent era, even though it doesn't), but nevertheless the film is fairly effective at telling the story dramatically and cinematically and the battle scenes and its use of depth of field is an interesting development in the directors style.

Readers might also be interested to see Fritzi Kramer's review of Absalom at Movies Silently.

==================
1 - Shepherd, David J., The Bible on Silent Film: Spectacle, Story and Scripture in the Early Cinema (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p.125.
2- Abel, Richard, The Cine Goes to Town: French Cinema 1896-1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp.38-43

3 - Anon. "Louis Ravet" Wikipedia, France. Available online: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ravet

4 - I know "iconic" is overused, but I struggle to find a suitable alternative. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

5 - Lavery, Daniel, "Absalom's Death and Death", The Chatner. 11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.thechatner.com/p/absaloms-defeat-and-death 

6 - Kramer, Fritzi, Absalom (1912) A Silent Film Review", Movies Silently, 8 September 2019. Available online: https://moviessilently.com/2019/09/08/absalom-1912-a-silent-film-review/

Silent Henri Andréani Films Online

I've decided to start posting more general Bible film news on here in addition to the reviews. I already post some stuff like this on Twitter, but it's increasingly hard to find stuff there again and it's nice to keep this site ticking over. 

Over the years I've posted quite a bit about the series of biblical shorts Henri Andréani directed for Pathé in the real golden era for biblical films, 1908-13. However, while many of his films based on the Hebrew Bible have survived, most of them remain locked away in archives. 

The good news is, though, that three of these films are now available either to watch online or download from Harpodeon for just $5. The three films are David et Goliath (1911) one of its three sequels, Absalom (1912) and Le sacrifice d'Abraham also from 1912. 

I have seen the first of these films before in the BFI archive's Joye collection and interestingly, this is a different print from the version I saw where the colour was far more impressive. In fact, as there's also a plain black and white version of this film on YouTube and there are also some frames from another version available to view online in the Eastman Museum Collection. then there are at least four extant prints of this film, three of which are in (differently) stencilled colour. I wrote about this film for my David chapter in "The Bible in Motion" as well as a long blog post about it here (which includes a transcript/translation of the German intertitles). 

As for the other two, however, I've not yet seen them, but I plan to review them shortly. In the meantime you might be interested to read Fritzi Kramer's review of Absalom at Movies Silently. 

Harpodeon have a number of other biblical silents available as well, including the 1907 Ben-Hur, Judith of Bethulia (1914) and Nazimova's Salomé (1922).

David and Goliath (2015)

Back in 2013-14 I wrote a chapter for the book "The Bible in Motion" about film portrayals of David (and, by extension, Goliath). There are two problems with committing this kind of thing to paper. Firstly, you will inevitably come across an odd portrayal that you had somehow not discovered before and secondly, the moment you're done, someone releases a new version and your work looks outdated.

So I must admit that I hardly leapt for joy back in 2015 when I heard that Tim Chey was producing a film called David and Goliath and I must admit that given the David film fatigue I was experiencing, when the trailer came out and looked pretty bad then I decided not to exert the effort needed to try and track it down.

But then of course Netflix picked it up, their not always entirely effective algorithm suggested it might be my kind of thing and I added it to my list. And there it stayed, at least until last week when I realised it was about to disappear and that I needed to see it before it would cost me good money to do so.

I have to say my initial hunch was right. David and Goliath is probably the worst Bible film I've ever seen, and, as anyone who knows anything about this subject will be aware, it's a very competitive category. It starts with a script that feels like it was never submitted to serious scrutiny. It's a little unfair to pick on an historical screenplay for anachronistic dialogue, but then I can't remember another film where soldiers talk about their percentage chance of winning, or dismiss those to be executed by saying "Have a nice day". True some films have entirely tried to use modern style dialogue (and probably been praised here for doing it), but here the more modern sounding dialogue clashes with the parts which use epic-movie-speak.

Elsewhere Goliath's pre-fight challenge to David sounds like a cliche from ringside at the WWF:

"Your God can't save you little rat...I'll eat your head. Nobody can defeat ME…You coward, you little maggot, you little weasel. I am God, you are nothing. I hate your guts. You moron. I'll show you. I'll destroy you..."

Is it being contemporary? Is it comedy? Perhaps it's making the point that Goliath was unlikely to have been very articulate, but the film is full of this kind of clunky dialogue. "Let me get this through your THICK, STUBBORN SKULL!" David's brother yells at him at one point, "that man was created to kill people!"

The problems with the dialogue are exacerbated by acting that is almost universally poor, with the cast seemingly resorting to shouting in almost every scenario from attempting intimidation, to being mildly annoyed. There's also repeated use of time lapse scenery footage, but bizarrely the bright lush scenery used in these sequences neither matches the geography of the action sequences, nor their style.

To be fair this is a low budget effort, and. given that, some of costuming works quite well, the red cloth and leather tunics worn by the Israelites give a tip of the cap to Rome, whilst still being distinct.

Usually I like to write positive reviews; flaming films rarely does much to improve the world, and other people do that far better. So I focus on what a film does well, what I learnt from it and so on. I try and understand what the filmmakers were trying to do and write about that. Here, however, it's almost impossible to do that. It does do much well and it's difficult to discern what the filmmakers were trying to do. It doesn't even provide a new angle on the story, or have a strong message - indeed, perhaps most damningly of all for an evangelical, faith-based project, it doesn't even make decent propaganda.

Having said all that, on going to IMDb to add some quotes from the film, I found that far more people had been there before me and done the same. So some people are clearly not only watching it, but also connect with the movie enough to post the quotes. I don't know whether this is a sign that I'm overlooking the extent to which some people will cherish even films that I think are very poor, or an indication that it's beginning to gain a cult following of the so-bad-it's-good variety. I can certainly see the appeal of the latter option. Now that David and Goliath has disappeared from Netflix I find myself wanting to watch bits again one more time or show them to others. After all, where else can you get to see a giant call his diminutive foe both a rat and a maggot and still fel the need to add "weasel" to the list as well?

Xena: Warrior Princess - The Giant Killer (1996)

Over the years makers of biblical films have often been at pains to stress the historical and/or biblical accuracy of their particular portrayals. There have always been exceptions however and, as would be no surprise to fans of the show, one adaptation that is cheerfully anachronistic is the episode of Xena: Warrior Princess called The Giant Killer (Series 2 episode 3, 1996).

As the title suggests, this is the episode where Xena meets up with an old friend of hers, a giant called Goliath, only to find themselves on opposing sides of the conflict between Israel and the Philistines. Like the biblical story Israel is still being led by King Saul, seconded by his son Jonathan, but unlike 'the original' David is already a valued member of the Israelite army, such as it is, and good friends with Jonathan (who dies before Goliath does).

For their part, the Philistines are led by a king called Dagon, (in the Bible the name of a Philistine god rather than their king) who sees Saul as a "petty criminal". Dagon also claims that the land "was an unproductive desert when we got here, and now, it's a thriving area!", which echoes the claims often made about how the kibbutz movement transformed the landscape of modern Israel.

Goliath here is given a far more significant back story than in any other dramatisation that I can recall. He has known Xena from her time before the series began. Not only is he familiar with her metanoia¹ but it emerges that the last time the two of them saw each other they were fighting together against another giant called Gareth. On that occasion Goliath saved Xena from Gareth's army only to see their enemy kill Goliath's family.

A decade on and Goliath is still hunting Gareth. It's for this reason that he is working as Dagon's muscle - despite his apparent misgivings about the Philistine king - yet when he finds out that he will be opposing Xena he almost considers deserting the Philistine army. Dagon however convinces Goliath to stay by promising to tell him where he can find Gareth if he stays.

Reluctantly the two former comrades end up on opposite sides of the battle and unfortunately for the Philistine hero, Xena tells David about his weak spot and helps him plan how to bring the giant down. Goliath's death, then, has a sense of tragedy about it. Not only do we, at least, appreciate his motives, but Goliath dies in vain, with his family still unavenged.

By coincidence, I happened to watch this film, Mary Magdalene (2018) and Guardians of the Galaxy (2012) within a week of each other and I could but be struck by the parallels between them. (Minor Spoilers for all three) All three feature a male protagonist who is mourning the death of his family and is now driven to action by that sense of loss. Here, as with Guardians it's too gain revenge on the person that murdered them. In Mary Magdalene it was to bring about the kingdom, which, one could argue was still a form of revenge, only a kinder, gentler form, with God doing the avenging. Nevertheless, all three characters suffer a cinematic "death" of sorts, with a sense of them being united with their families in death. And, of course, the audience gets the sense that ultimately they will get their wish (sort of). In Guardians it comes sooner than the others. In Mary it depends on how you view the Jesus movement and your faith for the future. Here, Goliath's revenge storyline reaches a conclusion later in the series when Xena causes Gareth to be struck by a bolt of lightning (end of spoilers).

Either way, this redeeming of Goliath is a radical departure from the Bible, and even his portrayal in most other David films, although films such as David e Golia (1959) do this to a certain extent. This is thoroughly in keeping with the way Xena's "lack of historical accuracy" is a "running joke" throughout the series.² "Xena's self-parody" and "her mismatched style" reinforcing that her "storyline never really happened".³ The series repeatedly subverts the myths in it's path, through it's humorous tongue in cheek style. By revisiting each story, playfully exaggerating and reimagining them, and developing characters beyond the details we find in the 'original' myths, it simultaneously presents a made-up version of the story which was definitely not how it happened, but nevertheless highlights the incomplete, and typically one-sided, nature of the traditional version of the stories. 

In this particular episode it's interesting that in addition to the aspects of the dialogue and script (available online) that alter and exaggerate the story from the first Book of Samuel, it also does it visually. When we first encounter Goliath he is already taller than the 9'9" (or 6'6") that the Bible credits him with. However, as the episode goes on he grows taller and taller relative to the other characters, moving from perhaps 12 foot to about 18th by the end of the episode.

There is also some toying with the idea of God. Being more familiar with the Greek pantheon, Xena's sidekick Gabrielle struggles to get her head around her new found friends' monotheism. At one point she tells David "This one God stuff is a new concept for me". David tries explaining that his god is "the ultimate power the highest Being there is", before employing a metaphor or two, "try to think of him as a sort of caretaker to the world, like our shepherd". This reminds David of a song he had just thought of, which he then recites which is, of course, Psalm 23. Shortly afterwards, on the morning of the battle, Xena sees David with his head bowed, sidles up to him and says "You might want to mention the weather to, you know, Him"

But perhaps one of the most interesting things the episode does is with David, and his rise to power. Whilst Saul remains king, Jonathan's death creates something of a vacuum. Initially it seems like Xena, who has sided with the Israelites due to Dagon's oppression of them, will be the one to take down Goliath and liberate them. Yet after Jonathan's death both Xena and David independently come to the same conclusion that it has to be David that kills Goliath and defeats Dagon, not Xena. What the Israelites need is "a leader", "someone to believe in". Thus Xena advises, equips, emboldens and fights alongside David, but ultimately it is he who leads the people and he who takes on and defeats Goliath.

Ultimately, then, for all the show's subversion, it leaves the story's primary structure more or less intact. David becomes the hero, defeats Goliath and ultimately becomes their leader. It's an approach nicely summed up by a final disclaimer in the credits: "No Bible myths or icons were irreparably mangled during the production of this motion picture". Well quite.

=============
1 - My understanding is that Xena first appeared in the Hercules TV series starring Kevin Sorbo as an anti-heroine, before having a change of heart after her dealings with Hercules. The redeemed Xena then began her own series as a hero with a past.
2 - Frankel, Valerie Estelle (2018), "Hercules, Xena and Genre: The Methodology Behind the Mashup" in Diak, Nicholas (ed.) The New Peplum: Essays on Sword and Sandal Films and Television Since the 1990s, pp.115-134. Jefferson, North Carolina: MacFarland. p.116
3 - ibid. p.123
4 - I'm grateful for Grantman Brown's transcript of this episode provided at SpringfieldSpringfield:
https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=xena-warrior-princess&episode=s02e03

Dave and the Giant Pickle (1996)

One of the films I didn't cover in last year's whistle stop tour of David movies was this entry into the popular Veggie-Tales series, Dave and the Giant Pickle. As with most of the other episodes in this series, the leading characters are played by CGI animated, anthropomorphic vegetables in a light hearted manner that seeks to each the kids who comprise its audience with a life lesson. Indeed so well is this lesson-for-the-day aspect established that it no only does it have it's only jingle, but the characters' boredom at this repetitive formula is played for laughs.

The story starts in a psychologist's office where Larry the Cucumber is being treated for what will turn out to be low self-esteem. There's a flashback to the story of David which starts with David trying to control his father's sheep, and his brother's abuse of him, But then a messenger arrives to announce the arrival of Goliath - sorry the, um, Giant Pickle, . Then one day David brings his brothers lunch, is incensed by the Giant Pickle denouncing God and vows to defeat his. Goliath makes his challenge no-one from Israel dare fight him; No-one that is, except for David, who, incensed by the pickle's impudence, tells Saul he will fight the pickle. Saul attempts to kit out David in his own armour, but David goes commando, take up his sling and turns the pickle into relish.

Sorry, that's my joke rather than a line from the film.

There are a couple of interesting moments. Firstly, the arrival of Goliath is prefigured by the same shaking water shot that Spielberg used to such great effect in Jurassic Park (1993) three years earlier. Other contemporary references include one of David's brothers appreciating the cheese filled crust to his Pizza and a series of Rorschach spots which increasingly look like something rather than being entirely random. Maybe that's just me.

But in a fortnight where we've been marketing the 20th anniversary of the release of Toy Story it was amazing to see how badly the CGI on this film compared to that. The CGI has not aged at all well.

That said, the kids loved it, and some of the tunes have come back to us through the day. So whilst Dave and the Giant Pickle might not be great art, it certainly amused and engaged its target audience.

2015's Coming Attractions

This post has been edited more than once to add in extra films omitted in error when it was originally published.

Having reviewed 2014's Bible film offerings I thought it would be a good idea to preview some of the films that will be appearing on both the big and small screen across the course of the next 12 months. In contrast to last year - where it was the films based on the Hebrew Bible which were in the majority, this year it's almost entirely New Testament films. So in no particular order here's what's coming up in 2015.

Last Days in the Desert
Arguably the most interesting sounding of this year's offerings is Last Days in the Desert which premieré's at the Sundance film festival in a few days time. It's had a good deal of press coverage, not least in the UK, due mainly to the presence of Ewan MacGregor as both Jesus and Satan. The film will deal with Jesus' 40 days in the desert and also stars The Nativity Story's Ciarán Hinds. The official website is still a bit sparse, but Christianity Today has a lengthy interview with both MacGregor and director Rodrigo Garcia.

A.D. (NBC)
If the premise of Last Days sounds like it might be sailing a little close to the wind for some, one production that will be playing it considerably safer will be NBC's 12-hour New Testament series A.D.. To some it's a sequel to 2013's The Bible; to others a remake of the 1985 series of the same name, though that film was also often referred to as Anno Domini. NBC have done away with all that, ensuring that the series will be impossible to search for, if a little easier to tweet about. The trailer for the film was released a few days ago and features Peter and Jesus fairly prominently, but not a great deal of Saul/Paul. There's a little more on NBC's official site as well as a companion site featuring a glut of resources for churches and character profiles. The series premieré is on Easter Sunday (5th April 2015).

Clavius
Another film certain to feature legions of Roman armies is Clavius starring the other, other, other child star of the Harry Potter series, Tom Felton. Felton will play alongside Joseph Fiennes in the story about "an agnostic Roman legionnaire" who is "thrust into the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ". Details are still emerging, not least whether it is Felton or Fiennes who will play the titular character, and when, in relation to the death of Jesus, will the story start and end. It's also unclear just how much of a cameo Jesus will play in this film. Fiennes' brother, of course, played the part of Jesus in The Miracle Maker.

National Geographic’s Killing Jesus
or, "It's a Jesus film, only this time...it's franchised". National Geographic have had a good degree of success with Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy, both based on Bill O'Reilly's and Martin Dugard's books of the same name, so you can see why they were tempted to jump back to the first century to film Killing Jesus as well. It's a little unclear when this is going to air, but it too may be an interesting project, not least because it features a Muslim playing the role of Jesus (Haaz Sleiman). It'll also feature Kelsey Grammer as Herod, as well as Stephen Moyer and Bible Films veteran John Rhys-Davies.

Finding Jesus: Faith Fact Forgery (CNN)

Finding Jesus is a six part documentary from CNN examining some of the historical artifacts surrounding the historical Jesus. In contrast to many of the exaggerated claims made for some of these artifacts, the documentary will take a more rational approach, carefully examining the evidence. The six sessions will cover, The Turin Shorud, John the Baptist (including the John the Baptist's finger relic), Judas (including the Gospel of Judas), the secret brother of Jesus (with the James Ossuary), the true cross (fragments of the cross relics) and Mary Magdalene (covering all that Da Vinci Code malarkey). Mark Goodacre is the series' lead consultant and you can find out more on the programme's official website.

Mary
Another Bible films veteran, Ben Kingsley, will also play the role of Herod in Mary, a film with a long, and some would say troubled, past from the pen of Barbara Nicolosi. Nicolosi has been involved since at least 2008, and then the talk was of that being a fifth draft of the script. Since then big names have come and gone (Al Pacino), the title has become more Aramaic sounding and then shortened back to just Mary, but there's still no sign of a website and the release date of April 2015 on the IMDb is looking a little unlikely. Perhaps given the Easter competition, the producers are thinking that the run up to Christmas might be a better time to release the film. Or perhaps this story is going to keep running for a good while yet.

Lumo Project (Big Book Media)
Last year, the Lumo Project released its version of The Gospel of John. According to Lumo's official website the other three are underway, and, according to the IMDb, at least two of those will be released this year (though it says Matthew was released in 2014, so it's perhaps not to reliable on this point). Quite when, where and how many of these projects will be released this year is anyone's guess.

David and Goliath
Having spent a good deal of time in 2014 writing on films about David, I was certainly interested to hear that another was due to be released in 2015. Sadly, and despite the filmmaker's claims of spending a, um, gigantic, $50 million on the project, any sense of anticipation has pretty much trailed away upon seeing this promo. The idea behind this trailer is to try and lever out some much needed funds for promotion. All I'm going to say is that they're going to need to find some people with rather less wisdom than the offspring of this film's eponymous hero.

The Ark (BBC)
Lastly, and not put off by a major film released with similar subject matter being released last year is The Ark from the BBC. It might be promising, actually. A far more accessible and middle of the road portrait than Aronofsky's Noah last yuear, I would imagine, but not necessarily the worse for that. David Threlfall takes the lead role (having played alongside Russell Crowe in Crowe's other big boat thriller Master and Commander) ably supported by Joanne Whalley and Nico Mirallegro. There's a few glimpses of footage on this BBC general preview. Tony Jordan, who wrote 2010's The Nativity for the BBC, has written this one as well, so expect a humanised and sympathetic telling should this ever make it.

====

Doubtless there are others I have missed and there are a number of other films gaining publicity at the moment that aren't even due to arrive until 2016, including the adaptation of Anne Rice's Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, another version of Ben Hur and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth based on Reza Aslan's controversial book.

A Story of David (1960)

British/Israeli production A Story of David is the only modern-era David film not to feature his victory over Goliath. Instead, it bravely starts it's tale during the period when David is well-established at court. His slaying of the giant has led to prominence in Israel's army and he is happily married to Saul's daughter Michal.

It's a gamble that certainly pays off. Often David films have a sense of anti-climax. After his early heroics, even becoming king seems to lack dramatic pay off. But then A Story of David doesn't have that either. Instead it limits its narrative to the story of David having to flee from Saul and surviving his forces in the wild until he and Saul are reconciled when David spares his life. Certainly this is the only film amongst the David biopics that manages to uncover the inherent tension in this part of the story.

There are a number of interesting innovations here. Doeg the Edomite relatively minor role in the scriptures is greatly inflated to one as Saul's key advisor, poisoning his mind. Indeed Doeg comes to hold far greater prominence than Abner, who whilst he is steadfastly loyal to Saul nevertheless looks on with disapproval at many of his actions. There's also an enhanced role for Abiathar. As per 1 Sam 22 & 23 he escapes the slaughter of the priests at Nob and flees to be with David. Though still a boy he becomes one of David's inner circle - certainly not implausible given his later position as (joint?) High Priest. But he also becomes the one from David's mighty men who draws water from the well only to see David pour it out to the Lord (1 Chron 11). (This is the only David film to include this incident as far as I recall).

The film also gives a significant amount of screen time to Abigail and her first husband Nabal, who is played by a relatively restrained performance by Donald Pleasence. This was three years before his role in The Great Escape brought him acclaim from outside the UK.

By this stage, though, the plot is beginning to peter out. The final scene where David and Joab sneak past Doeg into Saul's tent lacks both the necessary tension and a sufficiently strong resolution leaving the film without a satisfactory ending.

(Available to view online here.)

David e Golia (1959)

The title may read David and Goliath, but really it's all about Orson Welles' Saul. It's unclear what possessed Welles - a director of sublime talent - to get involved in this film, where very little talent is on display, but nevertheless he did and his portrayal of the Israelite king is, unsurprisingly, the best thing in an otherwise forgettable movie. Welles' heavy, sweaty body evokes memories of his earlier role as corrupt cop Hank Quinlan in A Touch of Evil (1958). The impression of corruption and decay is only heightened by the cheap and poorly lit throne room set and the generally amateurish feel of the production as a whole.

Whilst the vast majority of the film is set in the period before David becomes his national hero, the filmmakers nevertheless introduce the theme of Saul's jealousy for his one-day successor. It's not hard to see why. In contrast to the boyish figures that feature in many films about David here he is a full-blown, muscular adult. Whilst actor Ivo Payer is certainly shorter in stature than Goliath, he would be a match for many a man. Personally my feeling is that this is a little more realistic. The odds are still overwhelmingly in Goliath's favour, but David's subsequent military heroics make far greater sense.

One of the most interesting things about this film is that it gives Goliath a backstory. Indeed all three of the major players are developed as characters. The film's early scenes keep the three in isolation working hard to help the audience connect with them and build a backstory. This casts Goliath in a particularly interesting light. His character is shown to be a loner, living outside normal society. His only "friend" is really seeking to sell his labour to the Philistine kings. This sense of isolation is heightened by the bold and unusual soundtrack when Goliath is on screen. The orchestral music that features for most of the film is replaced by more esoteric sounds such as the musical saw and the theremin. It evokes sci-fi / monster B-movies, and makes Goliath monstrous and further emphasising how he is different from normal people.

Of all the films about David, this is the one that is most content to invent plot lines to flesh out the story and leading characters. David's first scene features his fictional girlfriend Egla who dies when she is struck by lightning. Later David visits Jerusalem (which in this film is already an Israelite city) and appalled by what he sees takes action and makes a speech against those exploiting others to make money. It's strongly reminiscent of the episode in the Gospels where Jesus turns over the tables in the temple. Abner and Saul's daughter Merab are also lovers and plot together against David, a scheme brought to an end in one of the closing scenes when Saul shoots his favourite commander with a bow and arrow. These elements so add a greater level of intrigue to the plot.

The biggest downside of the film, in the English dub, at least, is the attempted use of King James English. Whilst it's not hard to understand - it feels a little like someone has just gone through the script with a checklist of modern English words that convert to 17th century English - it's not close enough to the King James Bible to sound authoritative or authentic. Instead it leaves the film feeling stilted and phony and whilst the melodramatic acting and cheap sets mean this was never going to achieve classic status, it does ruin what had the potential to be a cult favourite B-movie.

David, a Young Hero and David, A King of Israel (1958)

The The Living Bible series tends to stick very rigidly to the biblical text and the three episodes that feature David are no exception, so I've not got a huge amount of comments on these films. I say "three" because the elderly David does appear at the start of the episode Solomon, A Man of Wisdom. So anyway, here's more of a scene guide to these episodes (something I wish I'd kept closer tags on as I was writing up the others in this series). N.B. Where an incident occurs in both Samuel-Kings and in Chronicles I've referenced if from Samuel-Kings.

David, A Young Hero
David playing the harp whilst shepherding (Psalm 23)
Anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13)
David plays for Saul (1 Sam 16:14-23)
David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)
Saul throws a spear at David (1 Sam 18:10-17)
Jonathan warns David using arrows (1 Sam 20)

Given my post a few days ago about Saul's mental health problems the one moment of this production that really stood out was the scene where David is brought in to play his harp. It's interesting that the narrator seems to provide both a natural description of the problem as well as providing a supernatural explanation. Initially Saul's problem is described as "black moods of despair" - which is notable not least because we have not been shown Saul's rejection by God. Moments later, though, the cause of Saul's problem is put down to evil spirits.

Given the film's low budget it does a good job of making an effective Goliath. By limiting the two competitors to only one shot in which they both appear some of the awkwardness about Goliath's relative size is effectively dealt with, and whilst the sound effects on Goliath's voice may lack sophistication they are certainly effective. I also like that David is clearly a late teenager/young man here rather than a young teenager/boy.

The film does end at a curious point which very much underlines the fact that this is the first instalment of a two-parter. Jonathan confirms that his father is trying to kill David and so David heads off into "the wilderness". When David returns he will be played by an older actor. Most David films change actors shortly after his felling of Goliath suggesting it is this action that turns him into a man. Here however it is his having to flee Saul and live a life of the run that ages him and matures him.

David, King of Israel
The 400 come to David (1 Sam 22)
Protection of Keilah (1 Sam 23)
David spares Saul's life (1 Sam 24)
David spares Saul's life a 2nd time (1 Sam 26)
Elders make David king (2 Sam 2-5)
The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6)
Covenant with David (2 Sam 7)

It's slightly peculiar that for an episode called David, King of Israel only a third of it (5 minutes) involves David actually being king. Given the series' conservatism it's no surprise that it overlooks the troubles of his reign, not least his affair with Bathsheba and the problems with Absalom.

One other pouint that stood out for me was in the scene where David spares Saul's life for the first time. Whereas most other films tend to depict Saul wearing his coat at the time, here he puts it down on a nearby rock, a rather more plausible scenario in my opinion. That said the robe itself is more like a women's wrap than any kind of robe, and the actor playing Saul clearly seems to struggle to wear whilst giving the impression that he has not noticed a large piece of it is missing.

Solomon, A Man of Wisdom
David announces his successor (1 Kings 1-2)
David passes on his plans for the temple (1 Chr 28-29)
[rest of episode]

This film does go where most other films about David don't however covering the messy situation surrounding his successor. That said the ousted Adonijah seems rather more relaxed about David's pronouncement than the Bible suggests and the two half-brothers shake hands in a manner which in no way suggests that Solomon is about to butcher his rival. Bizarrely the next scene depicts David having sprung up from his death bed and explaining his plans for the temple. It is, to say the least, a rather odd arrangement.