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.

King David (1985)

Like The Story of David, Bruce Beresford's King David (1985) also tries to fit the majority of the events of David's life into a single storyline. However, as with that film King David also starts with Saul's sparing of the Amalekite king Agag.

What follows is the stuff of Bible film folklore. The film bombed, lead actor Richard Gere won the Razzie for "Worst Performance of the Year" and it would be almost 30 years before another major studio would venture into the Hebrew Bible again.

Surprisingly, though, King David is not nearly as bad as all that. Gere's award probably hung on the infamous nappy scene where he strips off an dances as the ark makes its way into the city. It's hard to suppress a giggle during the scene but in fairness to the filmmakers the text is clear that David's dancing was undignified and semi-naked. It's hard to imagine anything being a great deal more undignified than Gere monkeying around, but his display certainly fits the bill - it's easy to sympathise with Cheri Lungi's Michal. And, if nothing else, it's a tribute to Gere's flexibility as an actor that just three years later he was winning over hearts everywhere with his portrayal of a sex-trade client with a heart of gold.

The other things that makes King David stand up well to some of the other films about David is that it is relatively short. At 114 minutes it manages to compress the storyline fairly effectively, covering all the main events: Saul's sparing of Agag, Samuel anointing David, David playing for Saul; David slaying Goliath; David and Michal; David fleeing for his life; Saul executing the priests; the deaths of Saul and Jonathan; the Ark being brought into the city; David's affair with Bathesheba; the rape of Tamar; Absalom's rebellion and Solomon's succession. There's even time to go into some of the incidents the other films don't cover such as Abigail and his other wives. By using a narrator the film is able to skip onto the next episode fairly quickly, although sometimes this is too much, too quickly with too little explanation.

There are a few moments of interest for Biblical scholars. The film brings out and enhances some of the prophetic aspects of the story, such as Samuel using the Urim and Thummim to clarify which of Jesse's sons is to be anointed king. Samuel also follows this up by prophesying to David what else will to happen including that God will challenge him in a none-too-subtle reference to his fight with Goliath.

There are also echoes of other Bible stories, such early in the film when Saul cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It's a phrase most familiar for being spoken by Jesus on the cross, but that is, of course, a reference to Psalm 22. Psalm 23 pops up as well as one of the songs David plays Saul (a feature of many of these films). Later on Absalom is question as to the whereabouts of Amnon and answers "Am I my brother's keeper?" with a reference to Cain and Abel.

Perhaps the most significant re-appropriation of the Bible is the story of Jacob wrestling with God. This first occurs as one of Saul's dreams, but it is then read out by Ahimelech shortly before he and his fellow priests are murdered. The idea of wrestling with God and not just settling for the accepted way of doing things seems to underlie much of the film. As a boy David fought Goliath when no-one else would. As a king he danced semi-naked and shows mercy to Absalom in contrast to his advisors' reading of the law. Nathan even accuses him saying David thinks he "knows his [God's] will better than the prophets".

This pattern finds ultimate expression in his final piece of advice to Solomon, his heir. "Be guided by the instincts of your own heart, no matter what the prophets tell you. For it is through the heart, the heart alone, that God speaks to man". Whilst such a "follow your heart" message is hardly a radical for a Hollywood movie, it is certainly contrary to the understanding of the time, a fact confirmed by Nathan's disapproving face as David says it.

That's hardly surprising as Nathan is portrayed as a dour, harsh and inflexible character throughout. Even the way he challenges David by telling him the "You are the man" parable lacks any real conviction, and the film doesn't seem too troubled by the whole affair. In this film it's Bathsheba who approaches David and the screenplay conveniently rearranges the order of events to suggest that Uriah is killed before David sleeps with Bathsheba. Later when Absalom is declared dead David mourns at length, whilst Nathan stands nearby scowling and rebuking him "When will you learn to obey the Lord your God instead of your emotions".

The scene following this is, perhaps, one of the most interesting in the film. David has been planning his temple, but when he hears God has rejected his plan he picks up Goliath's old sword an smashes his model temple to pieces. What's interesting is that as he is doing this (in slow motion no less) the narrator starts by saying "Fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all your heart. Consider the great things he has done for you" before adding "And behold it came to pass that David sinned no more. And the Lord smiled upon his servant David and strengthened his hand and gave him victory over his enemies wheresoever he went" before listing all the tribes David destroyed. The act of smashing the temple seems to be the filmmakers having an unsubtle swipe at organised religion, particularly as the narrator seems to endorse his actions by talking about David having God's favour.

Yet the film can't completely cut itself free from the grasp of organised religion. Having contrasted David's faith with Nathan's inflexible religion the filmmakers desperately try to glue back on the branch upon which they had until recently been sitting. David lies on his death bed dispensing "follow your heart" advice like a 13 year old who's just discovered Facebook, but then expresses annoyance at the presence of a scribe. "Must you record every word I utter?" David enquiries irritably? "It's for the Book of Samuel my Lord. You ordered it". It's a strange attempt to lend the film some historical credibility with a rather old theory about how the Books of Samuel may have come into existence. It bears very little relation to any historically credible theory, not least because the Book of Samuel was only known by that title well into the Christian era. Furthermore, the scenes of David on his death bed come from the start of 1 Kings rather than 2 Samuel, and, of course, there David says nothing that could really be summarised by the above.

It's possible, I suppose, that this is a clever suggestion that Nathan and his ilk got their hands on "the book of Samuel" and changed David's words to something that rather more suited their purpose. Possible, but unlikely. This is, after all, a film where all too often demonstrates its 'sophistication' with slow motion running; a David that can't shoot straight; a pre-battle "I'm Spartacus" type moment; and, yes, a man in a nappy dancing like a big monkey.

Saul e David (1964)

Saul e David by Italian director Marcello Baldi is a much undervalued member of the Bible films canon. So much so, in fact, that despite it having sat in my film library for many years I had to be reminded of it recently by Witlessd.

The image above occurs near the end of what is for, for me, the finest shot in the film, and indeed one of the finest in any biblical film. It's from the scene in 1 Samuel 26 when David spares Saul's life for a second time. Only we don't yet know it. The previous shot of Saul's camp in the distance, it's lights twinkling in the darkness of the night fades into a slow panning shot of the hills. As the pan continues Saul's camp emerges in the foreground and the camera tracks past sleeping soldiers before pausing momentarily on Abner's face, and then on Saul who lies asleep with his water jug at his side. It pans again along Saul's body until it encounters his javelin and the feet of someone standing over him. A slow pan upwards reveals the face of David. It's a sublime shot, not quite on a par with Orson Welles' start to A Touch of Evil but certainly worthy of being mentioned in the same breath.

Director Marcello Baldi was a stalwart of Italian "Peplum" films. Other entries on his CV include Goliath and the Dragon (1960) and I grandi condottieri (1965 - a.k.a Gideon and Samson) so he was familiar with filming this type of material. (He also did a great deal of second director work). However here he transcends much of the cheesy Son of Hercules vs Venus type material to focus on the more intimate story of Israel's first two kings†.

The film relies largely on Norman Woodward's performance as the troubled king. Some have found the performance to be over the top, others have found it powerful and sympathetic, but certainly it is an intimate performance that tries to understand Saul's paranoia, desperation and faltering faith. Gianni Garko also puts in a good performance as David too. Outwardly he cuts a heroic figure, his blond good looks and confidence winning audiences as well as almost everyone who comes into contact with him. But Garko manages to convey a great deal with his eyes. Again the shot above displays both his love for Saul, but also his sorrow that his King still wishes him dead.

What's interesting about David's heroic stature is this was previously the role held by Saul. Few films really attempt to portray this, but Saul e David captures it brilliantly in the opening scene. As Saul arrives back at camp following his victory over the Amalekites the people swarm round him . It is clear he is their hero. Saul himself is seemingly swept away by their euphoria. When Saul arrives to chastise him for not following God's commands to the latter, Saul expresses his doubts that Samuel even hears God. The scene ends with Samuel declaring "you will grow smaller and smaller" and with that the film cuts to a series of quick shots of huge tents being collapsed as the army prepares to return home.

The heroic link between Saul and David is emphasised when the Saul first encounters the young shepherd boy. "You're the ghost of my boyhood come to mock me" mutters Saul to the blond, almost golden skinned, child that stands before him. David's puniness casts a stark contrast with Goliath in one of the rare occasions that a David film portrays the giant at what would seem to be around 9'6". It's also one of the bloodiest befellings of the man from Gath, with blood spurting almost comically from his forehead.

From then on the story focusses on Saul's obsession with David and his perceived threat and superiority. It's an intimate portrayal which really draws out the tension in Saul's family (Michal, Jonathan) which only serve to twist the knife.


=====
†Technically, amongst the northern ten tribes Saul's remaining son Ish-bosheth was the second king, ruling for two years before he was ousted by David, but that doesn't flow as well. Interestingly there is a reference to this at the end of the film. As Ish-bosheth witnesses the battle being lost he reminds Abner of his promise to protect him which he does. As they ride away Saul's other sons are killed and Saul falls on his own sword.

Saul, Depression and The Bible Pt 4

I have a great deal of sympathy for King Saul. I've experienced depression myself and have several close friends who have also struggled with it, so it, no doubt, makes me empathise with those whose minds trouble them.

It would be foolish, of course, to try and place a precise diagnosis on someone who is, essentially, just a character in a book. We only have a very small part of the picture and the writers hardly sympathise with whatever the mental troubles are that so afflicted Israel's first king, nor do they have any sort of expertise in mental health. Indeed they, like most people of their time linked mental health problems to demon possession. Yet whilst scholars are becoming more comfortable aligning, say, some of the 'demoniacs' that Jesus 'exorcised' with epilepsy, there seem precious few revisionist takes on Saul.

Saul, was a young and tall man when he was, rather surprisingly, anointed king of Israel. He was not at all prepared for the role - his family amongst the lowest in Israel - but found himself thrust into the limelight with only the resentful Samuel as his mentor. Yet despite the odds against him, he unites Israel and wins a string of key victories over the enemies that had been afflicted him. The result? The kingship is torn away from him on a couple of technicalities and he never sees his guide and mentor again. He slides into an affliction so deep that the court worries about how to help him. Fearing he is cursed, he dithers when faced with Goliath (who according to some manuscripts may only have been a little taller than Saul) and sees another young man from a humble background to fight in his place. David's victory is decisive, but propels him to greater popularity than even his king.

We don't really know why Saul threw the spear at David. It's unlikely to be justified, but the sources all seem to favour David, despite his desertion to the Philistines, and so it's possible that the accounts of subsequent events are less than fair to Saul, but his reaction to David sparing his life is both an interesting contrast to the madman who we so often see depicted and a sign that sadness and humanity remained in his heart. His last acts smack of despair. Faced with a revived Philistine army, in desperation he consults a medium in the hope of reaching Samuel. Saul's worst fears and realised. The battle is lost. His sons are killed. He takes his own life.

The above is not meant as a serious historical account, nor as a neatly comprehensive Bible study. It's simply offered as a more sympathetic take on Saul - a man whose great potential was destroyed by his troubled mind.

I've been mulling this piece for a long time, perhaps almost a year since I first saw The Bible's fourth part. Various films treat Saul more or less badly. In some such as Rei Davi he is clearly stark, raving mad. In others, such as The Story of David he is played more sympathetically.

The Bible's account is interesting because on the one hand it wants to stick closely to the text. It doesn't really want to appear historically inaccurate by allowing Saul to foam at the mouth. Yet on the other hand it goes to considerable length to cast Saul in a very poor light. In addition to the inclusion of all the major low points in Saul's life, the are three overarching ways in which his failings are highlighted / exaggerated: dialogue, storytelling licence and visual representation.

Dialogue
As a series The Bible often uses paraphrased / invented dialogue but uses archaic sounding language to give it an air of authenticity. This is particularly true of the narrator whose authoritative voice lend the production the additional impression of credibility, particularly as the series first broadcast on the History Channel.

In the fourth part of this series the narrator adds various bits of dialogue that emphasise and exaggerate Saul's failings. When Saul is condemned for not destroying Agag and the Amalekite animals the narrator concludes that "in trying to please his men Saul has displeased God". Later on he tells us that Saul is now "obsessed with destroying David".

When The Bible's characters speak it is a mix of the semi-archaic and modernised dialogue, but it too is used to paint Saul in a poor light, emphasising his paranoia ("he'll want my crown next". "He wants our crown, can't you see?") as well as the extent of his problems ("Father! What demons posses you?"). There is also a good deal of mad/paranoid shouting at various points in the episode.

Storytelling Licence
All visual interpretations of the Bible involve a degree of artistic licence, but the ways in which the narrative varies from that in 1 Samuel is fairly telling, frequently painting Saul in a worse light that the biblical text. An early example is the first time Saul attacks David. In the Bible Saul throws his spear at David, just before he goes on to allow him to marry his daughter. It's a moment of insanity, but in the Bible it occurs when David returns from de-foreskinning 200 Philistines and Saul still appears to be brooding about the failure of his plan to endanger his future son-in-law. Later when Michal protects David by claiming he is ill, it's Saul himself who barges into Michal's room, rather than sending one of his men. It implies a kind of driven madness that is simply not their in the biblical account.

Another occasion when the programme pushes a little beyond the biblical account is when David "spares" Saul's life. In both accounts of this in 1 Samuel Saul repents and calls David his son. In the first account (ch.24) he even weeps. In this film however Saul remains annoyed and angry about the incident and shows no remorse. Finally, Saul's suicide in 1 Samuel happens as Saul is fleeing and pressed hard by the battle. He seems to kill himself to avoid the punishment that the Philistines mete out to his corpse instead. Here however when Saul takes is own life he is under no particular pressure certainly not in the heat of battle.

Visual Representation
A few of the techniques used here also make Saul seem less sympathetic. The first is that the actor chosen to play Saul is far less attractive that the actor who plays David. There is only 4 years between the two men but whereas Langley Kirwood who plays David seems hunky and youthful, Francis Magee, who plays Saul, seems old an haggard. Magee's demeanour doesn't really help matters, he sneers and hardly ever smiles.

The camera-work also adds an extra dimension here. Saul is often shot using a hand-held camera, for example in one scene when he is tossing and turning on the bed. Later on he prays and this time not only is a hand-held camera used it is held at a low angle and extremely close up, giving a real air of madness to Saul's attempts to reconnect with God.


I'm not sure why this episode stuck in my mind as it did. Perhaps it is just the way that for all the things that are going on around him Magee manages to find some humanity in Saul and help us find some pity for him. But perhaps it's just the way in which a number of small changes all pointing in a certain direction seem to go above and beyond what seems, to me at least, an already harsh assessment in the pages of 1 Samuel.

=======

Whilst I'm here I noticed a few other things in this issue not relating to the main issue discussed above. The first is when David enters Jerusalem a hero and petals rain down on him from the buildings above. It's noticeable for two reasons, firstly I'm not sure we know about the kind of buildings the Israelites were living in at this point - they had yet to conquer Jebus - but this kind of multi-storey courtyard seems a little far-fetched. It's also noteworthy because this shot is repeated (I believe) in a later scene where one of David's descendants (Jesus) also parades into a city and is greeted by a shower of petals. Later Jesus enters the same courtyard on the way to Golgotha, but this time is only treated with derision. Again, if memory serves the raining petals motif is something borrowed from Last Temptation of Christ.

Speaking of visual nods to Bible films gone by, there is an awful lot of similarity between the wooden screens Bathsheba gets changed behind in this film and in 1951's David and Bathsheba. Interestingly Bathsheba is also involved in the scene where the ark is brought into Jerusalem. It takes a bit of re-arrangement to make this happen (in 2 Samuel David's affair with Bathsheba is five chapters after the ark has been brought into the city), but it does throw fresh light onto why David's dancing was undignified and why his first wife, Michal, was not best pleased.

Rei Davi [King David] (2012)

Of all the films about David easily the most ambitious is Rei Davi. Indeed with 30 episodes and perhaps as much as 20 hours of footage it's probably the most ambitious project to film the Bible that has successfully been brought to fruition. The series was created by Brazilian company Rede Record, though is perhaps best known in the US for a run on the Spanish-language channel Mundofox as El Rey David.

Whilst all of the episodes appear to be on both YouTube and Dailymotion only the first two episodes appear to be available with English subtitles. That's enough however to get a bit of a feel for the series.

I mentioned in my review of the Greatest Heroes of the Bible's version of David and Goliath that one of the strengths of that version was how focussing on only one main incident made for an engaging narrative arc. This works for Rei Davi as well, only by covering one main incident in every episode it's able to maintain that narrative tension within that episode, but also be part of a broader coherent story which is able develop characters and sub-plots weaving together a grander tapestry than even a very long film can achieve.

Focussing on one incident per episode really allows the stories to build up. Normally, for example, there's not much plot in David being anointed by Samuel (episode 1) or him being brought to play music for Saul (episode 2), but both episodes gradually build up the story and bring real interest to it. Episode 1 for example explores the tension's in Jesse's household, in a way that parallels the story of Jacob and Esau as well that of Joseph and his brothers. Eliab is the mighty warrior, beloved of his father, whilst Jesse scorns young David who is still very much under his mother's wing. David being anointed king does not sit well with either his brother or his father. Indeed there's a bit of a cliff hanger at the end of the second episode as Eliab is tempted to tell Saul that his new musician is actually the person who has been anointed as the future king.

The production values seem reasonably high as well. There are a few special effects but generally they serve the needs of the story rather than feeling as forced as they do in some other Bible series. The costumes seem OK and whilst the filters aren't seem a little more basic that UK/US audiences are used to they don't detract from some good lighting and camera placings. And whilst the odd actor chews the scenery - most notably Gracindo Júnior as a raving mad King Saul - overall the performances are pretty decent.

One particularly impressive performance is that of Leandro Léo as the young David who often manages to balance opposing emotions at the same time. His David blends confidence with humility. He's hurt by the way his father disregards him, but he refuses to be pushed into hatred, sulking or self pity. It gives a level of credibility to his later battle with Goliath - a nicely taught affair - where his unshakeable confidence never towers over his very reasonable fear.

Hopefully the whole series will find itself translated sooner or later, whether on DVD or online, as I think it could easily become addictive viewing and there's plenty of evidence in these first two episodes to suggest it might well reward anyone who manages to put aside the 15 plus hours to watch it in its entirety.

Greatest Heroes of the Bible: David and Goliath (1978)

The latest in this series of films about David is this entry from The Greatest Heroes of the Bible series and I have to say it exceeded my (admittedly low) expectations. Perhaps the main reason for this is the filmmakers decision to limit the story to that of the battle between David and Goliath. As a single narrative the film comes to a natural climax which provides tension throughout, even though the audience know all along who will win. This contrasts with some of the other David films which cover most of what we know about him leaving the storyline more as a series of episodes but without a great deal uniting the various threads or driving the plot.

As with the other entries in the series, the film starts with a two and a half minute introduction to the Bible, which starts with the authoritative "In the beginning...". What follows is equally authoritative in tone but it moves from being actual words from the Bible, to a paraphrase of what the Bible says, to it's own modern take on the Bible.

In some ways that's the opposite of what happens once the film starts properly. The opening scenes are all essentially extra-biblical - there's a huge sub=plot about Abner's plan to use David's bout with Goliath as a distraction which will allow his guerilla army to sneak up undetected on the unsuspecting Philistines. Then gradually the film moves more into ground that is more firmly biblical, ending on David killing Goliath.

One of the biblical sounding additions is when David actually hears God's voice telling him to fight Goliath. It's an interesting addition - the only David film which I recall making the link between David's bravery and God's will so explicit. Typically the bravery aspect is played up, making David seem more heroic, whilst alleviating the issue of David killing and beheading an enemy.

Another interesting way in which the programme makes subtle additions is a brief shot from Goliath's point of view. Again this is fairly rare, and it's notable not just because other films haven't really done it, but also because of the unusual angle that it uses. In fact of all the David films this is perhaps the one that is most sympathetic to Goliath. Apart from anything he is played by the most well known actor in the cast, Ted Cassidy, best known for playing Lurch in The Adams Family. Cassidy is undoubtedly tall (6'9"), but he doesn't appear as mighty as the majority of Goliaths, indeed he looks rather awkward.

There are also elements of the Joseph story imported in here. When David's brothers hear it is he who is to tackle Goliath they implore Abner to let them fight Goliath in his place.

The battle itself is also a little unusual. It's rather drawn out and the "sword, spear and javelin" line from 1 Sam 17:45 is played out rather literally as Goliath throws his spear and javelin at David before producing his sword. The fight scene is also intercut with shots of Abner's men sneaking into position. Whilst this whole sub-plot is rather ludicrous - not least because it seems to undermine the impression of being biblically faithful that the production seems to strive for - it has to be said that these intercut scenes, and the score do ratchet up the tension.

Once his men are in position Abner blows his horn, David goes on the attack as do the Israelite army. There's a battle which might have culminated in a battle between the rather aged Saul and the Philistine king, were it not so feeble. Nevertheless, it's a more decent production than I would have imagined and at only 40 minutes worth seeing.

The Story of David (1976)

Somewhere in the 70s someone decided it was OK to do away with even the pretence of authenticity in casting biblical films and just go for sun-bleached blonds instead. So we get Ted Neeley and the super-blond Robert Elfstrom playing Jesus in 1973, Blanche Baker and Jeff East taking the lead roles in Mary and Joseph: A Story of Faith and, as the decade wore on, a whole range of implausibly Anglo-Saxon actors taking all manner of roles in the Greatest Heroes of the Bible.

So whilst Timothy Bottoms and Keith Mitchell are, admittedly, not quite as yellowy as Elfstrom, the casting director certainly can't have ranked "Middle Eastern looking" too highly on her list of attributes required to play history's most famous Jewish king. That's not all that will stand out to modern viewers, either. The photography is, perhaps, best described as "very seventies": it's all Instagrammy high exposure and lemon tinting, making the Kingdom of Israel seem surprisingly innocent for a world where at any moment you could get asked to whip up 100 foreskins as a dowry.

Sadly that incident is one of the few that The Story of David leaves out (although a rather icky bag is handed out after David's return). At roughly three hours, there's pleasingly good coverage of David's life, and the filmmakers make good use of the two-part format by dealing with events in 1 Samuel in part 1 and covering the events of 2 Samuel in episode 2.

One of the film's big selling points is it's cast. In addition to Bottoms and Mitchell in the title role there are three big name actors, Jane Seymour, Brian Blessed and Anthony Quayle. Quayle's portrayal of Saul is the most memorable performance. Both the Bible itself and many of the other films about David portray Saul in a poor light, but Quayle's performance combines with the scripts best writing to give real sympathy to the Benjamite monarch, reticent to carry out the inhumane actions that Samuel demands after years of service. Later when Saul needs David's music to calm him, he's clearly afflicted. It's a moment of sympathy when so often this scene is used to buttress the reasons why Saul needed to be replaced by his son in law.

One of the other highlights is the film's attempts to grapple with the complexities of the David the King. Having won the throne he has to deal with the rivalries between Abner and Joab, and between Amnon and Absalom, not to mention Absalom's attempt to wrestle power away from his father. But in reality these episodes are merely notable rather than engaging or insightful. Similarly the affair with Jane Seymour's Bathsheba is of little interest.

Ultimately, then, it's a mixed bag. The camera work, compositions are workmanlike, aside from Quayle the acting is mundane and the writing is occasionally quite clunky. And whilst a lack of visual authenticity does not necessarily prevent a film from illuminating its subject it's nigh on impossible to forget that this is just a bunch of Americans running around in California with a camera.

David et Goliath (1910)

(Warning: sometimes I write well, intelligently and interestingly. Other times I seem to be more driven by a desire to record everything, even if it's dull and meandering so at least I know where to find it if I ever need to. Sadly for all concerned this is one of those latter occasions.)

I'm doing some writing on film portrayals of King David at the moment so I thought it was about time I wrote up my notes on Pathé's David et Goliath from 1910. There was a rush of short films about David at the time with six films about David being released in as many years (the others being David and Goliath in 1908, Saul and David in 1909, David and Saul in 1911, David, King of Israel in 1912, and La Mort de Saül in 1913).

David et Goliath is the only one I have seen however, although the fact that Solomon¹ (p.166) discusses the Italian made David, King of Israel and Shepherd² (p.66-68) discusses Blackton's Saul and David means that prints of those two films are still in existence. As far as I can tell however David et Goliath does appear to be the only one which you can view online (parts 1, 2 and 3). The online version comes with French intertitles whereas the version in the BFI archives has German intertitles. As it was there I first encountered it - and diligently wrote down all the intertitles it is those I'll refer to, though I'm not convinced that the intertitles all say the same things.

It's also worth noting that the German version has been produced using some kind of early colour process (hence the image above) whereas the French version is in black and white. The appearance is similar to that of early two-strip Technicolor, but as that wasn't yet in existence then it looks like it was made using either Lee-Turner Colour, Kinemacolor or the Keller-Dorian process. (The Kinemacolor Wikipedia entry lists 262 films made using the process but this isn't one of them.)

Unusually the film starts with a close up of some of the leading actors, the French version shows the actors playing David, Goliath and Saul, whereas the German version only includes Goliath and Saul. As was typical at the time the rest of the film only comprises mid-shots so these are the only close ups in the picture. The close ups are proceeded by each actor's billing (though the German print only starts after Goliath's introduction.

HERR ALEXANDRE
VON DER COMÉDIE FRANÇAIS
ALS KÖNIG SAUL

MR ALEXANDRE OF THE "COMÉDIE FRANÇAIS" AS KING SAUL

Following the introductory shot of Saul we get the first intertitle proper.

Die Philister haben
Den Israeliten den Krieg
Erklärt, und die drei
Brüder Davids ergreifen
die waffen

The Philistines declare war on the Israelites and David's three brothers take weapons.

This preceeds a scene of David and his brothers are sitting around which is absent from the French version. David plays the harp, Jesse wears an alarmingly short robe and Samuel arrives giving the early 20th century gestures for "quit playing that harp I have a message from God". More messengers arrive and read from a scroll resulting in a two columned intertitle designed like a scroll.

Sohn Israels! Die Philister sine in dein Land eingedrugen Der König mendet sich an dich

damit durch deinen Hut die Ehre deines Gottes gerellel werde Saul

There seem to be quite a few errors between what I noted down and correct German, some of which is probably my poor quality transcription, but there are translation errors in some of these intertitles as well, so here is what it seems the intertitle should be trying to say and an English translation

[Sohn Israels! Die Philister sein in dein Land eingedrungen Der König wendet sich an dich damit durch deinen mut die Ehre deines Gottes gerettet werde Saul]

Son of Israel! The Philistines have invaded your land. The King turns to you so that by your courage the glory of your God will be saved. Saul

The older sons are sent off to war and David tries to go too, but Jesse stops him, putting his arm around his shoulders. A heartbroken David sits down and pleads to go but Samuel also intervenes.

The next intertitle introduces the next scene of David looking after the sheep

“David Verteidigit
Seine herde gegen
die raubtiere"

[David Verteidigt Seine herde gegen die raubtiere]
David defends his herd against predators

The "predator" in question turns out to to be a wolf, bear or lion, but an eagle. It's a surprising divergence (do eagles poach sheep frequently enough for this scene to be credible. Perhaps it was just that the fake eagle seemed more credible than a fake lion / bear / wolf. Perhaps composition required an aerial threat rather than another woolly mammal trying to stand out amongst all those sheep. Either way David brings it down with his sling and Jesse is so pleased he allows him to head to the front with a basket of bread for his brothers.

“Im auftrage
seines vaters bringt
David seinen brüdern,
Sauls soldaten,
Lebensmittel

David on behalf of his father brings his brothers, Saul's soldiers, food.

There's an oddly comedic scene here (also absent from the French version) where some boys hide and steal David bread. Fortunately David whips out his sling, fells one of them and gets his brad back.

David then arrives at the camp waving into the distance. Meanwhile some of the soldiers grab weapons and line up.

Goliath Schlägt
Saul einen
Einzelkampf vor

Goliath beats Saul before single combat

I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of this sentence is so I've left it rather literally. Essentially though it's followed by Goliath strolling into camp and shouting (in tablet form):

König Saul! Erwählet einen unter euch, der mit mir Kämpfe, Vermag er wider mich zu streilen und schlägt er

mich, so wallen wir eure Knechte sein, schlage ich aber ihn, so sollt ihr unsere Knechte sein. In zwei Studen erwarte ich meinen Gegner

[König Saul! Erwählet einen unter euch, der mit mir Kämpfe, Vermag er wider mich zu streiken und schlägt er mich, so wollen wir eure Knechte sein, schlage ich aber ihn, so sollt ihr unsere Knechte sein. In zwei stunde erwarte ich meinen Gegner]

King Saul! Chose one of you, with me fighting, he is able to strike against me, and he beats me, then will we be your servants: but I kill him, then shall ye be our servants. In two hour I expect my opponent

Seeing Goliath leave, David is ashamed. Saul begins his hunt for a champion, but only David is willing:

Es entfalle keine,
menschen das herz um
deswillen dein knecht
will hingehen und
mit de Philister straiten

Let no man's heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with the Philistine

There are quite a lot of extra subtitles in the French version than in the German, which disrupts the story for anyone that knows it. David offers himself and points to the sky and then in the next scene comes face to face with Goiath.

David sprach zu Goliath:
Du kommst zu mir mit
Schwert, Spieß und Schild;
Ich aber komme zu dir im
namen des hernn zebaoth
des Gottes ISraels den
du Gehöhnet hast

[David sprach zu Goliath: Du kommst zu mir mit Schwert, Spieß und Schild; Ich aber komme zu dir im namen des herr zebaoth des Gottes Israels den du Gehöhnet hast]

David said to Goliath:
"You come to me with sword, spear and shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel whom you have defied"

Thus David reveals that he is the challenger. Goliath mocks him of course, raising his arms whilst David prays desperately to God. The two circle each other for a while using the depth of field in a way that was not that well established at the time so that by the time David fires the vital shot, Goliath is closest to the camera. Goliath falls, writhes and dies.

The final scene shows David processing through the town on a horse. He wears a crown on his head whilst a minion follows at a respectable distance with Goliath's head on a stick. Again there are more subtitles in the French version, the last of which ends by citing Samuel 1 - 2 Ch 32.

Campbell and Pitts describe it as follows:

DAVID AND GOLIATH
1910
France
Pathé
1000 feet B/W
CAST Berthe Bovy, René Alexander, L.Ravet.
Another in the series of French Pathé films adapted from Old Testament stories. This version of David's slaying of the giant Goliath, at 1,000 feet, was a bit longer than most of the series entries.

The BFI archive has a synopsis for this film rolling two descriptions into one very long one so I'll just provide the link on this occasion.

====
1 - Solomon, Jon. "The Ancient World in the Cinema", (Revised and expanded edition). Yale University Press, 2001 p.166
2 - Shepherd, David J., "The Bible on Silent Film: Spectacle, Story and Scripture in the Early Cinema", Cambridge University Press, 2013. pp 66-68.