Queen Esther (1948)

About 6 years ago I mentioned that the Gospel Films Archive were hoping to release a DVD of the 1948 Cathedral Films production Queen Esther. It's been a longer wait than any of us expected, but I was really excited this week to get an email from them informing me that the restoration work on the film has finally been completed and it's now available to buy on DVD alongside the 1937 biblical film, Ruth which I'm yet to see¹ Here's my brief review of what I think is quite an important work, given the general of paucity of US biblical films in the 20 year prior to its release.
=====

Esther has often been a popular choice for Jewish and Christian artists working in an array of media over the decades. The patriarchal succession for Israel and Judah meant that biblical queens have tended to only been involved in the royal families by marrying into them, and of those few to get anything more than a cursory mention, often they are seen as having a negative influence rather than a positive one.

Esther, though, is distinctly different. As a Jewish woman who gets elevated to be a queen in the Persian Empire. Not only does her story have excitement and glamour built into it, but she is also given a heroic role that she can fulfill by being faithful to God. No surprise, then, that during that first big crop of films based on the Hebrew Bible from 1908 to 1913, Esther got her movie debut in 1910 (Esther and Mordecai & The Marriage of Esther) and that by the end of the decade her story had graced the silver screen seven times. 

Yet by the time Cathedral films released Queen Esther in 1948 it had been almost three decades since her story had been made into any kind of film. As such it's the first Esther film to feature sound and one of the rare American Bible films from the period from the Great Depression to the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

Interestingly the film starts in a modern setting with a Jewish family reading the Bible as part of celebrating Purim and using her Jewish name Hadassah. This framing of the story as a Jewish story is quite remarkable given its age, but perhaps just three years after the horrors of the Second World War the resonances between Haman's attempted destruction of the Jews and Hitler's were unavoidable. Indeed when we return to this family at the conclusion of the film the family's patriarch ("Grandfather") reminds them that "throughout the centuries there have been many who have attempted to destroy our people..."

By the time the story transitions to Ancient Persia then Esther has already married the Persian king, here identified as by the Greek version of his name Xerxes (rather than Ahasuerus). Esther, played by Ottilie Kruger, is also identified as Mordecai's cousin. The opening scene is fictional and, somewhat bizarrely,² features Mordecai (Richard Hale) explaining to Esther that those who approach her husband without permission risk being condemned to death. There's also an additional episode where Haman (Addison Richards) tries to convict one of Mordecai's associates of stealing from him, only for Mordecai to outwit him. While it remains an implication, it certainly is implied that Haman is acting dishonestly. It also firmly establishes that Mordecai is the kind of brave, forthright, quick-witted person whose character will be used to heroic effect later on.

Only then do we come across the first biblical episode from Esther 2:19-23 where Mordecai overhears a plot to kill the king, tells Esther who informs one of the kings advisors meaning the plot is foiled. Xerxes (Charles Evans) assumes this is Haman's work, but the official involved makes sure that it's recorded in the annals that it was Mordecai who was responsible for saving the king. But the official continues in his conversation with the scribe. It's clear that even a (presumably) neutral Persian considers Haman a bit iffy.

It turns out though that really this official should be more concerned about Haman's wife (pictured below) than he himself. Following Mordecai's refusal to bow before Haman, it is she who comes up with the idea to kill all the Jews and then urges Haman to do it. "It's beneath your dignity and rank to avenge yourself against one man. If all the Jews refuse to pay homage, let them all suffer" Later she will also suggest building some gallows for Haman to have Mordecai executed. I'm not sure if this is the impact of film noir and its femmes fatale, but its strange to shift the blame from the villain in the text to another when no motive is particularly apparent.

Xerxes seems to have a rather laissez-faire attitude to Haman's authority which makes him somewhat unsympathetic. Nevertheless, Mordecai is very positive about his emperor's character, even calling him "Good King" when he is not around, stressing that "the king is not unkind, not unreasonable". Even when Haman's plan becomes apparent Mordecai is unable to blame the king. "It's evident that our good king has been misled". What's interesting is that (thankfully) there's no real attempt to present Xerxes as a romantic figure to whom Esther is drawn, something that is bolstered by the opening of the story being excised. But then in some ways this is because Mordecai is almost more of the focus in this film than Esther herself.

For a low budget production the sets are pretty good. I can't speak to their authenticity, though as with The Story Esther  (1910) there are suggestions of the bas-reliefs in Haman's house and Xerxes' palace. The exteriors seem pretty good too. Likewise I don't know enough about the costumes of this time and place to be able to pronounce on their authenticity, (Haman wearing trousers) but they do seem to be more distinctive and of better quality than in some of the other releases by Cathedral Films. 

There's the occasional nice use of the camera too. As many of the shots are fairly static the more dynamic shots – such as the pivotal scene when Esther risks all to request a dinner date with Xerxes and Haman – stand out all the more. The eve of the second banquet finds neither Esther nor Xerxes able to sleep, leading Xerxes to discover Mordecai's heroics meaning Haman's spends the day before the banquet leading Mordecai around the city to be honoured.

I always feel with the Esther story that the protracted stages with which Esther makes her request doesn't really translate very well dramatically. Here the film takes steps to make that seem less awkward while maintaining the original three-request structure of the original text. The first banquet follows immediately after her shock appearance in the courtroom and is very short: As with the Bible, Haman arrives at the second banquet hot on the heels of his day honouring Mordecai finally arrives. 

It's interesting, though, how director John T. Coyle has subtly altered the seating arrangement. Esther sits to the left of the frame in both scenes, but in the first she sits next to Xerxes, literally getting him on-side: In the second, now Haman sits between the king and his wife, as if underlining the fact that his schemes threaten to separate king and queen permanently. Esther seizes her moment when Haman proposes a toast to the royal couple's reign "may it be a long, prosperous and happy one", opting out of the toast and then, when pressed by Xerxes, explaining her predicament. Xerxes is angered. Haman exposed. Xerxes orders that Haman and his sons be hanged on their own gallows and promises Esther that he will find a way to save them.

It's here that the film cuts back to the film's modern book-end. The extent to which the Jewish people fought back (killing over 75,000 of their enemies) is doubly watered down here. Firstly, no scenes of this violence are depicted, but also when instead the "Grandfather" (played, I think, by the same actor as Mordecai) narrates the end of the story his rather child-friendly summary is that  "they defended themselves so valiantly, their enemies were discouraged". 

For those familiar with Cathedral Films' other efforts, particularly The Great Commandment (1939), No Greater Power (1942), I Beheld His Glory (1952) and Day of Triumph (1954), this film is more or less what one might expect. The story holds fairly closely to the biblical story, with the most significant variations being being the point at which the story dips in and out of the original text, often using some kind of framing device. The costumes and sets look good value for the low budget and the acting is to a better standard than similar church produced films in the era. While, like nearly all Esther films, it makes certain elements of the story more palatable and family friendly, at least it doesn't take things in the opposite direction of making it a love story. And of course the kind of more incisive interrogation of the text that that we might give it today was not remotely on the agenda in 1948.

What was on the agenda back then is reflection on the Holocaust and it's here where the film is most powerful and creditable. Its framing of this as a Jewish story and a reminder that persecution of Jewish people has been an ongoing aspect of history, not a one off, seems unprecedented to me, even with biblical films from the post-war period. It's even more remarkable given its the product of an unashamedly church-based producers and deserves to be seen more widely.

==============
1 - I haven't been paid to endorse this film though I did receive a screening link. I don't even make money via Amazon affiliate links: They're just convenient.

 2 - I don't mean that the law permitting this is bizarre, even though it seems so to our eyes, more that it seems odd that Mordecai is explaining this to Esther only after she has married him and that this wasn't covered during the 12 months she was being institutionalized at court.

The Story of Esther (1910)

Back in 2016 (was it really that long ago?) I wrote the first entry in my "Silent Bible Film Mysteries" series, seeking to get to the bottom of three Esther titles that Gaumont released around the early 1910s. The conclusion was that there were two shorter films, The Marriage of Esther and Esther and Mordecai that were released in the US a week apart in June 1910, but at other times and places were circulated as a single film Esther. There was also something of a lament that these films were not available to view outside of (offline) film archives.

Recently, however, I got notified by John from betweenmovies.com that a composite version of the film could now be streamed from the (online) Gaumont Pathé archives. You have to create an account – which takes a while, perhaps because they are individually verified – but then a composite version of the film is there to view. (BetweenMovies is a great website, by the way, and has some really interesting additional information about these films, including original reviews, press ads, still and some more screen grabs).

=======

The first thing to notice is that the title version of the film is The Story of Esther. It's plain enough that this is a renaming of the composite material, though perhaps with some additions and subtractions. The production was attributed to Louis Feuillade, and its stars were called "three of the most noted of Paris", "Mademoiselle" Gravier as Esther, Leonce Perret as Ahasuerus and "Monsieur" Legrand as Mordecai. Perret also worked for Gaumont as a director. He was at the helm of at least 292 of their films, including his La Fille de Jephté (1910) which I've discussed before. Mlle Gravier then is presumably Gisèle Gravier who starred in both another of Perret's films, Gisèle, enfant terrible  and another of Feuillade's La prêtresse de carthage the following year.¹ I could turn up nothing on M. Legrand.

The plot remains fairly close to the contours of the biblical text. Vashti has already been deposed before the start of the film, conveniently relieving the film's leading man of the suggestion of impropriety. Instead the opening shot sees an array of young women arrive at the palace as candidates for Ahasuerus' next wife. For most of the shot, though, Mordecai and Esther stand at the front right of the screen facing the crowd. Esther hesitates before entering – and is the last to do so – then Mordecai returns to centre stage and reaches his arms to heaven. 

After the width of the opening outdoor scene, the indoor scenes move in closer for a more intimate atmosphere. Esther and the other "maidens" are prepared to meet the king and there's a deft iris shot to close the scene focusing on Esther. 

In the next scene similar camera placement sees Ahasuerus chose Esther from only a handful of women, with everyone else ushered out before the King himself places the crown on Esther's head. Moving Picture World's Rev. W. H. Jackson called this moment "decidedly and extremely peculiar, most unwarranted, and without doubt not faithful to the times and custom".² I think he may be protesting a little too much. "Without doubt" seems a bit strong given how little was known about the era 110 years ago, even if he is probably right. Historical inaccuracies in Bible movie? Surely not.

In any case it's noticeable that this scene is not particularly romanticized. Given the lengthy procession of women into the palace, Ahasuerus seems to spend almost no time at all deciding on his new queen and while he picks his bride based purely on looks, there's very little indication that she is attracted to him.

Jackson was much more favourably disposed towards the wedding banquet scene however which manages quite an impressive depth of field with an advisor front, centre and relatively close while dancers twirl away on the stage at the back of the room. The composition is a little odd – Feuillade doesn't pan or zoom at all in this film – so the advisor is sat facing off screen, but it does leave a gap for Esther and Ahasuerus to process down. This seems to be the climax of The Marriage of Esther and, in honesty, it's more than a little slow.

It's also noticeable here how the walls reproduce some of the statues and bas-reliefs taken from the Palace of Sargon II (in Khorsabad). While Sargon II pre-dates the era in which the story was set by about 200-250 years, the palace had only been discovered by French archaeologist Paul-Émile Botta in the 1840s and was (and is) prominently displayed in the Louvre. If you compare the scene with this image from the Louvre you can see it's a direct attempt at reproduction.

A fairly detailed title card leads us into the second half (or Esther and Mordecai) opening the shot above. I've not managed to turn up any association between Esther and the harp, but it makes for quite a striking image. Mordecai warns Esther and the two proceed to foil a plot against her husband in the film's best action scene with Esther and Mordecai saving the king in the nick of time. 

The same set is also used for the next scene where Mordecai refuses to bow to Haman. The wall decorations here are not immediately identifiable; they look more Egyptian than Babylonian to me. Perhaps they were recycled from another Gumont film set in Ancient Egypt, perhaps even Feuillade's own L'exode (1910), which I've seen but don't have access to in order to check.

Haman goes to Ahasuerus who gives him the ring from his hand in order to enact his revenge on Mordecai and his people. Interestingly the throne room here resembles Jean Pesne's print/etching of the scene. It's supposedly based on Nicolas Poussin's "Esther devant Assuérus", but, Pesne's image mirrors Poussin's and makes it a good deal lighter such that the detail and architecture is far more apparent. Perhaps Feuillade and his set designers were influenced by one or both of them, perhaps neither. Haman sets off to set the wheels in motion.

However in the meantime, Ahasuerus discovers that Mordecai had not been honoured, calls in Haman and orders him to put Mordecai on a horse and lead it through the streets announcing his honour. One of my favourite parts of the story is omitted here. In the Bible, the king asks Haman to devise the method of honouring. Haman thinking it is he who is to be honoured is then appalled by to discover his method of honouring himself will now be applied to his hated enemy (Esther 6:6-10). This ironic switch is made all the worse as it is her who has to parade round honouring Mordecai. It also foreshadows the following chapter, with a not dissimilar switch whereby the method of execution Haman has devised for Mordecai will be used to kill Haman instead (Esther 7:9-10).

The scene of Mordecai's honouring is the film's most interesting in terms of influences. It cleverly combines both Gustave Dore's "Triumph of Mordecai" & Jacques Tissot's "Mordecai's Triumph" with a single static shot that merges the composition of one into the other. On top of this the bystanders wave palm leaves which also recalls Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. While it's appropriation / supersessionism this typological interpretation of Mordecai (as a "type" of Christ) has long been popular with Christian interpreters and so it's no surprise that biblical filmmakers carried on this tradition.

And then comes the climatic scene with Esther's banquet. the plot abridges the cycle of meals Esther goes through prior to explaining her predicament to her husband and instead cuts to the chase. The composition here is more akin to Rembrant, Lievens, Victors and Armitage than to Tissot or Dore, but it's notable how many depictions of this scene place Haman on the left, but none of the historical artistic takes on this moment capture the dramatic way in which Esther flings her arm out across Ahasuerus to point to the man she is accusing. 

It's noticeable also that she doesn't faint in contrast to the deuterocanonical passage from Esther 15:7 where she swoons. However Ahasuerus comforts Esther as she sobs which is found in Esther 15:8. Haman begs for is life, is seen and is led away. 

Haman's grim execution is omitted, but there's a final scene in Ahasuerus's throne room and a final Thanksgiving scene featuring women dancing in the kind of generic SE Mediterranean costumes that dancers are routinely given in this kind of scene. I don't know enough about costumes from this time and place to know if any of them are accurate, but these ones feel particularly orientalising.

There's little of the additional material from deuterocanonical books, or subsequent Jewish tradition. What's more interesting though is the way that he parts of the narrative that are omitted tend to benefit Ahasuerus, Mordecai and perhaps the never-mentioned God. The grim realities of Harem life are minimised. While Esther's not portrayed as attracted to Ahasuerus, he's made to seem decent enough with physical shows of affection and comfort. His questionable treatment of Vashti is left out as his Haman's execution. Meanwhile, Mordecai's orders which result in over 75,000 gentiles being killed are also not included.

So while there isn't anything as heinous as the trivialising in the Veggie Tales version, nor the teenage romanticising of One Night with the King (2006) and perhaps a few other recent outings), it is a fairly sanitised adaptation of the story. 

That said, all things considered this isn't a bad first cinematic screen outing for the Book of Esther. Some of the processions are over long and the characterisation is a little weak, and there's little of the spark that we find in Feuillade's Fantômas just a few years later, but it does have its occasional moments. And it's network of visual references from Assyrian bas-reliefs to Tissot and Dore provide a good deal of interest.

=====

1 - Gisèle, enfant terrible listed on the IMDb. La prêtresse de carthage listed on p4 of this catalogue of Early films from the collections of the Swedish Film Institute.

2 - Jackson, W. H. "The Marriage of Esther: A Critical Review by Rev W.H. Jackson" in Moving Picture World, vol 6 Jan-Jun 1910, p.1098. Available online at https://archive.org/details/movinwor06chal/page/1098/mode/2up?view=theater 

Silent Bible Film Mystery - #01 Gaumont's Esther (1910)

At present I'm doing some work on a list of films from the Hebrew Bible. It's one of those tasks that you start off thinking will be a big job and then it turns out to be massive. The end is in sight but I'm left trying to figure out if certain films are the same with different title or different films, which is particularly tricky when you delve into the silent period and the period between 1907-1914 when films were short, often released together but also often sold section by section.

Which brings me to the film/series Esther from 1910. It was made by Louis Feuillade for Gaumont and starred Renée Carl, Léonce Perret, Madeleine Roch. But according to the AFI it was released as two films on two different dates - The Marriage of Esther on the 11th June 1910 and Esther and Mordecai a week later on the 18th June 1910. Dumont (2009) lists these as two films, one simply called Esther and the other called Esther et Mordochée. The IMDb joins them together under the title The Marriage of Esther although if you view it on the iPad app the title is changed to Esther. It lists all three titles as alternatives.

David Shepherd discusses the film briefly in "The Bible on Silent Film". He lists it as simply one film Esther and indicates that it exists in both the BFI and the Gaumont Pathé archives and describes it on pages 104-5 which you can read in Google Books. It sounds like he has seen it. One key point though is that he describes it as part of a trilogy, though I'm not sure what evidence exists for this aside from his own assertion. Campbell and Pitts mention this only in passing (as part of the easily missed section on page 5 of other Gaumont films) but mention it as two films Esther and Mordecai and The Marriage of Esther, in that order.

So whilst my hunch is that these films were originally released as one in France, I'm going to list them as two as that appears to be how they were released in the US and that it seems to be the only way to clear up the relationship between the three titles. Unfortunately, whilst I like to call the films by their titles in their original language that would be problematic here so I will have to opt for their English titles. The more I go into this project the more I realise just how many twists and quirks there are.

A couple more bits of information on this one. Firstly. There are some excellent frame grabs of this film at NitrateVille thanks to Bruce Calvert of the Silent Film Still Archive. These also show that the film was hand coloured rather than just black and white. Disappointingly I can't seem to find this anywhere to buy or view. Neither it, nor any Bible films are part of Kino's Gaumont Treasures Vol. 1 DVD despite the fact that two of the three discs are dedicated to this films director Louis Feuillade and star Léonce Perret. Indeed given that the other disc is given over to Alice Blanche Guy it's a little disappointing that not a single Bible film makes the cut. Opens the door for another project perhaps...

Lastly, the IMDb also includes a couple of photos of the film and there's also a nice summary of the two parts taken from "Moving Picture World".

PART ONE: "The Marriage of Esther" King Abasueris, who is now generally understood to have been Xerxes, and who ruled over India and its provinces about B.C. 521, is recorded to have cast aside his wife and directs that it be heralded throughout the domain that he is in search of a new spouse. He issues instructions to have brought before him for his approval the most beautiful young girls of all his lands. Accordingly, the maidens are led to the palace, and we see them being sumptuously gowned and bejeweled before being brought into the presence of his Majesty. Among the number, the king is greatly impressed by the beauty and grace of a handsome young Jewish girl. This one is Esther, who was adopted by her uncle, Mordecai, and by him brought to the palace of the king. Esther's beauty surpasses that of all the others and she is crowned Queen by Abasueris. Mordecai is appointed to sit at the king's gateway.

PART TWO: "Esther and Mordecai" Mordecai is appointed to sit at the King's gateway. While on duty he discovers a plot to assassinate the King and discloses the facts, whereupon the King orders that this brave deed be recorded in the Annals of the Kingdom. Among the King's favorites, Haman is supreme. He soon becomes violently jealous of Mordecai and plans his destruction. As Mordecai is a Jew, Haman makes preparations to massacre the entire race and thereby complete his revenge on Mordecai. About this time the King decides to make a review of the Annals and to his amazement finds no record there of the good deed of Mordecai, whereupon Haman is ordered to give honors to Mordecai. This only serves to increase the jealousy of Haman. Through the gracious intercession of Esther, Mordecai soon has another and greater victory over Haman. As the time for the massacre of the Israelites approaches. Esther, who has been told all by her uncle, Mordecai, invites Haman to dine with her and the King at the palace. During the feast she discloses the fact that she is a Jewess and declares that all those who are enemies of the King and are not worthy of his favor, whereupon the King, who has been informed of the full facts, orders Haman delivered up to the guards and has him hanged on the very gallows Haman had designed for Mordecai. The victory of the Israelites is now the cause of great rejoicing.

It's a shame that the BFI have taken all the details of their archive details off their website, as that might have been a potentially useful source of information. I don't understand that decision at all...

Will Esther Feature in Xerxes?

The Los Angeles Times has an interview with Frank Miller about his plans for a 300 prequel mini-series, Xerxes. He talks about the impact of the last movie and gives some outlines as to the scope of this new project. This part stood out in particular:

"There's an extended scene set in Persepolis," adds Miller, "for instance, where he [Xerxes] takes power and there are several scenes where he is going through his transitions and he's shown speaking to his mother and his wife..."

The wife is unnamed, but among the various contenders for who this might be is the biblical queen, Esther. It's true that we're unclear whether the king she married was Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I or even Artaxerxes II, and even if it was Xerxes I then it could be either his wife Amestris or even Vashti that Miller is thinking of. Nevertheless there is a chance it could be Esther.

That said, Xerxes and Vashti are also biblical characters to an extent so even their portrayal would be of some relevance. It's quite interesting to juxtapose portrayals of Xerxes in Esther films with that in 300: in the former Xerxes is usually portrayed (bizarrely in my opinion) as a hero, whereas in 300, and the Greek historical sources that the film is very loosely based on, he is very much the villain.

Comingsoon.net
has also covered the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Few Thoughts on VeggieTales: Esther, the Girl Who Became Queen

I've made a few posts on Esther and, by coincidence, the other week at church Nina (my 2 year old) and her pals were sat down to watch VeggieTales: Esther, the Girl Who Became Queen (2000). I had watched this once before, but as I was looking after Nina anyway I was keen to re-watch it given both my currrent exploration and my criticisms of it in a previous post. My major bone of contention then was that,

the Veggie Tales series sanitises the story to such an extent that it removes all dramatic tension from the film whatsoever. The Jews aren't at risk of being wiped out by a jealous megalomaniac. They simply are in danger of being exiled to the island of perpetual tickling. I must admit I don't understand the approach of this series and other attempts to purge the Bible of mentions of death, unpleasantness and other aspects of real life. Sooner or later children will learn about death, and that it's in the Bible, and the longer this goes on, the harder it will hit them.

That was actually written before I became a parent, but I still largely standby what I wrote. Whilst I wouldn't want children unnecessarily traumatised, I do think death is part and parcel of life, and there seems little point to me in adapting a story if you are going to purge it so thoroughly of its primary narrative momentum. Just do a different story.

Film is such a powerful and accessible medium that altering, as opposed to simply editing, a story inhibits a child's ability to know a story later in life. They have to undo their previous understanding as well as grasp for the first time what the story actually says. Obviously much of these alterations are humorous and are made to make the story more entertaining, which I accept is part and parcel of the whole Bible film sub-genre. At the same time, I'm frequently amazed at how few evangelical Christians are, in any sense, disturbed by some of the Old Testament stories. I think one of the main reasons that this is the case is that, early on, and, primarily thereafter, sadly, they are told the sanitised versions of the stories rather than confronted with a straightforward version of the text. The fact that the story ends with large numbers of the Jewish people's enemies being killed fails to trouble the majority of evangelicals simply because it is either minimised or omitted entirely from most re-tellings of the story that they will have heard. Anyway, revisiting the film gave me the chance to re-evaluate how the film handles the original story. The first scene of the film I got to see was the contest to decide the next queen. In the Bible this contest is essentially about Ahasuerus having sex with the (presumably) best looking virgins in his kingdom and choosing the one he enjoyed the most. Different films portray this differently, for example One Night With the King, despite the sexually suggestive title, plays this more like a beauty contest. The sexual aspect is still there, but it's very much toned down.

By contrast, in the Veggie Tales version the decision is made on the basis of a talent contest - queen idol if you like. Esther's song moves the king and she gets chosen as queen. On top of this, it appears that the king (pictured below) is significantly older and physically unattractive, although it's hard to know for what passes for beautiful amongst vegetables. This again minimises any notions of romance and /or sex that dominate most of the other Esther films. Of course, portraying things as they really were would not be appropriate for young children, but why include this part of the story at all? All we need to know in order to keep the story moving is that Ahasuerus chose Esther.Whilst we're on the subject of this contest, it's notable that Esther sings a particularly Jewish sounding song. This means she emphasises her Jewish identity rather than conceals it as Mordecai actually urged her to do in the original story.

One final observation is that Haman is not only planning to kill Mordecai and behind the command to wipe out all the Jews, but he is also behind the attempted assassination of the king. This places Haman in an even worse light than the Old Testament does and thus makes Xerxes' decision between his right hand man and his queen significantly more straightforward than it would have been.

I'm Xerxes. No, I'm Xerxes

As regular readers will know, I've been looking a bit at the book of Esther recently as background to the course I run, Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years. The session actually ran last Monday, but one of the things we discussed was different portrayals of King Xerxes. So I was interested to stumble across deebeedee's post of various film images of the Persian Emperor, contrasted with his image in the Bas-relief.

One of the points I made was that it's notable how filmmakers completely re-work Xerxes' image depending on how his role fits with their plot. So perhaps the most controversial depiction of him is in 300 where on top of the movie's hyperbolic visualisations he also plays the leading villain. Note how strongly this contrasts with his ultra-sweet portrayal in One Night With the King where not only is Xerxes a sensitive lover, but he is also played by a former member of a boy band (Luke Goss) - see images at deebeedee.

The two images in this post are also of Xerxes. The one below is from the Bible Collection's Esther (1999) where the character is, again, a sensitive man, but also frequently behaves like a petulant child. Here's there's an undercurrent that Esther is there not only to save the Jews, but also to save their king from himself. The image at the top of this post is Richard Egan's turn as Xerxes in Esther and the King (1960). Here he is also portrayed sympathetically, although it's interesting that this film has him as heroic and charismatic rather than a sensitive 'new man'. Both of these later films also follow the Bible's lead of calling him Ahasuerus, which does, of course, raise the possibility, that they are not actually depictions of Xerxes, but of another king entirely.

Of course varying portrayals of Xerxes based on ideology is nothing new. I've heard it said that the feast which Queen Vashti refused to attend in Esther 1 was a celebration of the Persian's victory in the Greco-Persian wars (which, in fact, they lost). It's also worth pointing out that none of the portrayals of Xerxes thus far have used an actor who was close to being ethnically Persian. In fact, Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro, who played him in 300, is the only non-Caucasian to have taken the role so far.

Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah

As I've mentioned here in the past I currently lead a course called Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years where we look at a different book of the Bible every month. In July we'll be looking at Esther and given how this story is a popular one with filmmakers (see all posts on Esther films), and how our baby is due any minute, I thought I might use some extended clips from one or two of them.

One of the Esther films I have always liked is the Bible Collection's version. It was one of the first in the series I watched, and it was perhaps the first time that I realised that the early part of the story wasn't some fairy tale love story, but that of state-sanctioned rape. It's possible that Esther enjoyed the glamour of it all, but the Bible certainly doesn't mention that. (Having said that even this film hints at a love story. Note the shot above - the first time the camera gazes upon Esther - and how the intimate close up and soft focus suggest romance). Naturally, then, this is one of the clips I'm thinking about showing, so last night I began to re-watch it.

The first thing I noticed was that both Ezra (below) and a young Nehemiah appear in this film. This was a little frustrating as I had hunted for relevant film clips during the last two months, if only to find a suitable image for the Through the Bible... blog. But having studied those books in some depth now it was interesting to see how the film treated the characters.Of the two, it's Ezra who gets the most screen time. Ezra's a friend (or disciple?) of Mordecai and we meet him even before we meet Esther. As a thief is dragged away by the Persian guards, Mordecai voices his dismay at the likely severity of the thief's punishment; he will have his hand cut off. When Ezra replies that such is the Persian way Mordecai begins to reply. "It's not the harshness Ezra, it's the absence of clemency. We Jews should remember when we write our own laws..." but he is then cut off by the arrival of Haman.

There's a fair bit packed into Mordecai's statement. Firstly, it clarifies that this Ezra is the same man who will go on to lead the Jewish people, and establish them as a people who (actually) follow the law. Lest their be any doubt, a little later he advises Mordecai not to let Esther "marry a foreigner". But there's more to it than that. Whilst the books of Ezra and Nehemiah present their leading man taking the people back to the law of Moses, there are also a few differences. Scholars disagree as to how much input Ezra had in the process, and whilst Deuteronomy seems to have been a written text by the time of Josiah, some claim that not much else was actually in written form by this point. Mordecai's statement seems to suggest that the laws weren't written by that point, and that Ezra was amongst those responsible for writing them down.

But there's more to it as well. Whilst Mordecai is shown as older and wiser, it doesn't appear that Ezra takes a great deal of notice of him. Indeed it's generally a very unflattering portrayal of Ezra; he comes across as arrogant and judgemental. There's very little compassion and this tends to be underlined by the actor's harsh an unattractive face. So the film doesn't seem to think a great deal of Ezra and is keen to show that not everyone was behind his abrasive approach to reform.Nehemiah's appearance (above) is briefer and he appears much younger than Ezra. There's some debate as to which of these two men acted first, but the film seems to back the theory that Ezra came first and needed Nehemiah's work to complete the job. This again suggest a fairly low opinion of Ezra. Those who value his input more highly tend to suggest that he was completing Nehemiah's work and not vice versa.

Nehemiah is also portrayed more positively. Whilst still not classically good looking he has a soft, endearing face, and his demeanour suggests he is humble, receptive and teachable. He is, of course, being tutored in the art of wine tasting, but there's enough in this brief vignette to hint at how this Nehemiah's future might pan out.

There were a few other points that I noticed. Firstly, in the film Ezra links Haman to the Amalekites of King Saul's time. This is something I'd missed before, and probably only picked up because it's significance is enhanced in the 2006 Esther film One Night With the King. Both films draw on a Jewish tradition that considered the Amalekite King Agag (whom Saul spares and Samuel kills in 1 Sam 15) to be the ancestor of Haman who is described in Esther 3:1 as "Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite".The film actually pays quite a lot out of attention to the various names. For example, as with the Bible, Esther is originally called Hadassah, but as she is taken to the palace Mordecai tells her to change her name to Esther - a Persian name. Later on the chief Eunuch, Hegai, somewhat awkwardly, expounds the meaning of the name. It's a variation on the name Ishtar - the Babylonian goddess of love. It's kinda funny that originally this name was chosen to sound un-Jewish, and yet these days Esther it's considered a classic Jewish name.

The film also calls Esther's husband Ahasuerus. This is in line with the original texts, but most translations these days use Xerxes instead. Whilst it's likely that Ahasuerus and Xerxes are one and the same, I'm glad the film sticks with what's in the text rather than try and interpret it in order to make the story seem definitively historical.

All this and I'm only about 40% of the way through the film! I do seem to recall that the opening part of the film is the strongest, but we'll have to see. The film is already quite different to how I remember.

New Bible Films Released on DVD

Just before Christmas, I mentioned that the "definitive edition" of The Passion of the Christ was to be released on DVD. For those who weren't yet aware, it will be released on the 30th Jan 2007.

Also released to DVD on the same day is last year's film about Esther, One Night With The King. There's some info about the DVD on the FoxFaith website. From the information presented there won't be any extras to speak of, other than English / Spanish subtitle options. The aspect ratio will be 1.78:1 (widescreen). I must admit I'm a little surprised that the film is being released to DVD so soon after its cinema run. I suppose it will mean it is available in the run up to Purim.

Even more surprising is the news that Jean Claude La Marre's black Jesus film Color of the Cross has already been released on DVD. There's no info about it on the FoxFaith site, but it's available to buy through Amazon and all the usual outlets. In terms of extras again there are English / Spanish subtitles (as well as French), but there is also a behind-the-scenes featurette. I'm hoping to review this film shortly.

Esther and the King - Scene Guide

I watched Esther and the King back in September last year, when I made the first post of what I thought would be series of three. Well October was a busy month, and the last ten weeks have been pretty hectic, so it got put on the back burner. Now, however, I've finished talking about films about the nativity, and now I'm itching to get back to something from the Hebrew Bible, and so this post's time has finally come! I thought I'd start with a look at the scene breakdown before publishing a review.

[extra-biblical episodes]
The King Rejects Queen Vashti - (Esther 1:1-12)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Vashti is Banished - (Esther 1:13-22)
The King's Decree - (Esther 2:1-4)
Seizing of the Virgins - (Esther 2:5-9)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Esther Tells Mordecai - (Esther 2:10-11)
Esther is Chosen as Queen - (Esther 2:12-18)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Haman's Plot to Destroy the Jews - (Esther 3:6,8-9)
Esther Approaches the King - (Esther 5:1-3)
Haman's Plot to Destroy the Jews - (Esther 3:6-7)
Esther Pleads for the Jews (again!) - (Esther 7:1-6)
[extra-biblical episodes]
The King's Second Edict - (Esther 8:8, 11-14)
[extra-biblical episodes]
(Psalm 23 cited)
The Jews Defend Themselves - (Esther 9:1-17)
(Psalm 121:4)
Haman is Hanged - (Esther 7:10)

It should be obvious from the above that the film omits a great deal of the biblical material. So Mordecai is not shown saving Ahasuerus' life, neither is he honoured accordingly. Esther does not provide any banquets for Ahasuerus and Haman, nor does she fast and pray before making her plea to the king. The Jews do not fight for a second day and Esther does not request all Haman's son's be hanged.

In place of all these biblical stories we have a number of ludicrous, and convoluted sub-plots. Haman's murderous intent is stoked solely by his lust for power. When Esther spurns his advances he decides to annihilate the Jews, using the law passed by Dairius which led to Daniel being cast into the Lions Den (Dan 6). Esther, however, convinces the king to relent, leaving Haman to launch a second plot, fabricating evidence to get Mordecai convicted of treason. Esther makes a second plea to Ahasuerus, but it is only partially effective. The decree stands, but will not be carried out until the king returns from checking things for himself. Haman uses this opportunity to try and assassinate Ahasuerus, but when his plot fails, the king sends Simon with instructions to help the Jews to defend themselves.

The other strange alteration to the biblical story this film makes is in the opening scenes dealing with Queen Vashti. I discussed this to some extent in the "Sexual Politics" post. Essentially Vashti's refusal to come is played sullenly, and linked to her adultery with Haman. Once banished she then comes and performs a striptease. This is a far cry from Vashti's refusal being an anti-war protest in the recent One Night With the King.

There are a number of citations from elsewhere in the bible. In particular Mordecai recites Psalm 23 as he waits in prison for the destruction of his people. This is one of the most popular parts of the bible to be cited in films. Obviously it appears in most films about David, but also Pale Rider, The Elephant Man, Paradise Road, The Wicker Man, X-men 2 and Ushpiniz and Hitchcock's Lifeboat. It is also parodied in Jarhead and Full Metal Jacket. There are no doubt plenty of others. The film also quotes Psalm 121:4 ("he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep"), and, as mentioned above, discusses Dairus' edict in Dan 6.

One Night with the King – Scene Analysis

One Night with the King has been out for a week now, so, having already reviewed the film, I thought it was about time I did a comparison between it and the biblical text. First however, there are tons of reviews for the film, so I’d just like to highlight a few of the ones I’ve appreciated. Steven D Greydanus (Decent Films), G.M.Gretna (LMLK Blog), and Russ Breimeier, (Christianity Today). CT’s Film Forum also summarises 9 other reviews (including mine). If you’re wanting a full range of reviews, then I suggest you check out Rotten Tomatoes where, sadly, the film currently has only scored 19% on the tomatometer.

Since I’m doing this scene analysis so soon after the release date, I should stress that it will contain SPOILERS throughout, and is really aimed at those who have already seen the movie. If you haven’t I suggest you stick with my review for now. The episodes work out as follows:

Saul's disobedience - (1 Sam 15)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Haman's ancestry - (Esther 3:1)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Vashti refuses to attend - (Esther 1:1-22)
Hadassah to Esther - (Esther 2:10)
Esther Seized - (Esther 2:1-8)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Esther gains Hegai's favour - (Esther 2:9)
Esther's preparation - (Esther 2:12-14)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Esther takes Hegai's suggestion - (Esther 2:15)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Story of Jacob and Rachel - (Gen 29:9-20, )
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Esther chosen - (Esther 2:16-18)
Mordecai uncovers a plot to kill the king - (Esther 2:19-23)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Haman plan to kill the Jews - (Esther 3:7-15)
[Extra-Biblical Episode(s)]
Esther and Mordecai hear of Haman's plot - (Esther 4:1-10)
Reading of - (Is 40)
Mordecai refuses to bow - (Esther 3:1-6/5:9)
Mordecai honoured - (Esther 6:1-14)
Mordecai persuades Esther - (Esther 4:11-17)
Esther's request - (Esther 5:1-8)
Haman's plot revealed - (Esther 7:1-10)
Xerses' edict for the Jews - (Esther 8:1-17)
Mordecai initiates Purim - (Esther 9:18-32)

Notes
The film contains almost all of the episodes recorded in the biblical book of Esther although it compresses some, and greatly expands others. Consider for example the events of Chapter 2. These form only a tenth of the book, but almost half of the film. This means that there us a clear emphasis on the romance aspect of the story. Yet, the romantic aspect of the story may be entirely fictional. We are told Esther is attractive (Est. 2:7), and more attractive to Xerses than the others (2:17) but this alone is not sufficient evidence to support a 21st century notion of romantic love.

The episodes the film leaves out are significant. The most notable omission is the first half of chapter 9 where Esther asks Xerses for a second day for the Jews to defeat their enemies, leading to 75,000 deaths. The film implies that (nearly) all of the enemies of the Jews are dissuaded from attacking them, whereas this was not the case. Esther’s second banquet is also excluded presumably to simplify the story and make it flow better as a film.

The order of the events is also changed. In the biblical text Haman initially just wants to kill Mordecai, because of his refusal to bow before him. It is only once he realises that Mordecai is a Jew that he decides to kill them all. Whilst this suggests anti-Semtism in Haman prior to this incident, it also suggests that he was not primarily motivated by his purported Amalekite ancestry.

There is also a large amount of material added to this story, and particularly the first two-thirds intersperse one biblical episode with one or more extra-biblical incidents. This allows for a heavy degree of interpretation, but it also applies historical background, rounds out the various sub-plots and fleshes out some of the minor characters. It also cleverly weaves the minor figures from the book into larger roles, so Admatha, Memucan (both ch.1) and Hathach (Ch.4) have their roles expanded, and Esther’s reliance on Hathach is put down to their friendship before they were seized. It’s all speculation of course, but is artistically valid even if it is not historically sound.

Finally, the film contains a number of other biblical references. The most obvious is the inclusion of the story of Saul sparing Agag (1 Sam 15), which features the much-vaunted cameo by Peter O-Toole. The inclusion of the story of Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29) is also fairly memorable. More obscure and, thus, less noticeable passages are also included. When first confronted with the news about Haman’s plot, Mordecai recites Isaiah 40, which, curiously, is chosen instead of the Deuterocannonical prayer of Mordecai. Another citation from elsewhere in the bible is the oft-repeated line from Proverbs 25:2: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; but the honour of kings is to search out a matter". There is also a reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, (Dan 3), as well as references to the events leading up to the exile and the fact that some Jews have returned.

Medved Heaps Praise on One Night With the King

A few more bits on One Night With The King.

Firstly, Michael Medved is interviewed on the One Night With The King official website after he watched the film. He gushes with praise for it, at one stage calling it "the most pro-Jewish movie I’ve seen in many years".

Elsewhere, Variety is similarly impressed, there's a mixed review at Las Vegas Weekly, and LA Weekly absolutely slates it saying it "plods across the screen with the thudding portent of an earnest Sunday-school lesson". Personally, I found the pacing to be pretty good, with the filmmakers eschewing the temptation to make it three hours just because it's an epic. That said, I would have preferred less emphasis on the love story and more on the closing chapters (which were kind of skipped by), but that's just personal taste.

One Night With The King - Review

"There’s a temptingly simple definition of the epic film: it’s the easiest kind of picture to make badly." - Charlton Heston

The challenges of creating an epic film are so demanding that most filmmakers have been put off before they have even started. The rise of CGI has made creating epics a little simpler for those with big budgets at their disposal, but without that amount of cash, few independent filmmakers have managed to create pictures that are truly epic in size, scale and scope as well as in story.

Michael Sajbel’s One Night With the King, out today, is one such exception. Produced on a shoe string by Matthew Crouch, Richard J. Cook, and the screenplay’s writer Stephan Blinn, it’s a far better effort than anyone who watched their previous effort (The Omega Code) would have expected. This is one of the most visually impressive epics in years. Steven Bernstein’s lush cinematography captures the wonder of Jodhpur, India, and transforms it into a beautiful, distant world of long ago. The sweeping, exterior shots are truly awesome. So many bible films are made in Morocco and Italy at present that those locations have become synonymous with the Holy Land. But this story takes place elsewhere, in Persia, and by switching to a new location, the film captures the otherness of this strange land which would have been so different to the Jews who were first brought into exile there.

The interior shots are no less impressive. Aradhana Seth’s production design, most notably the palace interiors are so vast and impressive they make DeMille’s The Ten Commandments look like a school play. Multitudes of extras inhabit both the interiors and exteriors filling these shots with a life and vitality that CGI struggles to replicate.

Ultimately though, even the most impressive visuals in the world cannot compensate for poor acting, and it is here that the movie is a little uneven. Certainly the cast list features an array of impressive stars. One can't blame the publicity team for boasting about how their film reunites Omar Sharif and Peter O'Toole for the first time since Lawrence of Arabia. In the end though it's difficult to decide which is more surprising, that O'Toole's appearance is as short as it is, or that Sharif's is so prominent. As one would expect, Omar Sharif turns in a solid performance, as does John Rhys-Davies as Mordecai. But all this would be largely irrelevant were it not also for an impressive debut performance by Tiffany Dupont. With only television work, and one supporting film role to her credit she effortlessly makes the transition to a lead role.

Sadly, the acting side of things is let down, badly, by poor performances by Luke Goss and Tommy "Tiny" Lister as Xerses and Hagai respectively. Goss is just plain awful. Unsure of his accent, and unconvincing both as a king, and as a lover he spoils almost every scene he features in.

Lister, on the other hand, is perhaps less to blame for his problems. One of his biggest attribute is his fearsome size, and the producers have done him no favours by trying to cast him against type in an ultra-sensitive, beauty-treatment-loving, girl’s-best-friend type role. Lister may have been able to pull this off had the dialogue he was given not so patchy. "You think a eunuch cannot know love?" and so on. Throughout the film, the dialogue is inconsistent, often being unsure whether to speak in "epic" language, or to use more every day dialogue. At one point the script has Xerses cram both into the same sentence; "know you how many nights I spent counting the stars to take my mind off of you".

The script is also at fault with the role of Haman. Whilst it cleverly and creatively links Haman, an Agagite, with King Agag, who Samuel slays in the opening act, it fails to flesh out the meaning of all this to him personally. Haman’s revenge becomes another of those long standing secret society affairs, and his character remains fairly one-dimensional. Ultimately, the bible finds some sympathy for him as he begs Esther for his life once his conspiracy is uncovered. But the film makes Haman’s pleas sarcastic, refusing to allow any ambiguity in the character lest the audience might find some sympathy for him, and question his execution. Haman remains, then, a one-dimensional villain, and the deep, throaty voice that James Callis utilises further renders this, somewhat ironically, as a shrill and shallow depiction.

All in all, One Night With the King is a mixed affair, visually brilliant, and boasting some impressive acting and creative storytelling. For those points alone it certainly deserves to be seen, particularly on the big screen. Sadly, though, it also has its weaknesses. Whilst they are far from fatal they do detract from the undoubted quality of the film as a whole.

UPDATE: I have now posted my scene analysis

One Night With The King - New Website and Trailer

UPDATE: My review for this film is published here.

After two years of delays, it finally looks like Esther movie One Night With the King is going to be released on the 13th October. And at last someone has given the official website some much needed care and attention, and they have certainly made up for lost time.

First up there is the trailer, which makes the sets look vast and impressive. There are also a good range of photo stills, of all the various actors, but the real bonus are the 4 featurettes. It's fairly standard practice these days to film some of these as promos for a film which then make good bonus material when it comes to releasing the DVD. The first two are fairly standard in this regard. They're hosted by Tommy Tenny, who in addition to writing the novel this is based on seems to be fairly involved with the adaptation project as well. Tenny intereviews a couple of the main actors, Tiny Lister in the first one, and Luke Goss in the second. Lister is playing Hegai, and he cuts an imposing figure. That said, he is the deepest voiced Eunuch I've come across.

The best featurette is the 3rd, dubbed "Timelapse". Basically it shows the set being built in fast forward. It's the first time I've seen this done for a film set, and the size of the set makes it quite interesting. Lastly we end with a scene from Dupont's home church as she is told she's been chosen to play Esther. This scene kind of makes me wonder about life imitating art, as Dupont must have gone through a period of preparation hoping to be chosen to play the role of someone who is herself chosen from amongst many young women.

Elsewhere on the website there is a press pack with a bit more information. We learn the film was made in India. I like the fact that they've gone somewhere other than Morocco, which is where everybody seems to go these days. Perhaps I'm imagining it, but it does seem to give the film a very different feel from so many other recent films. This is perhaps appropriate as whereas most of them are set in the Holy Land, this story is set in Persia.

One thing I cam across in the press pack which was slightly strange. One of the PDFs says "Not since the splendor of Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet has a romance of such epic proportion hit the theatres." Perhaps it's just me, but it seemed like an odd film to use as a point of comparison. That said I've never seen it, but then no-one has ever tried to convince me I should either.

October: A Busy Month for Bible Films

I can’t think of a time in which more has been happening on the bible film front as this coming month.

One Night With the King - At Cinemas from 13th October
First up there is the cinema release of Michael O. Sajbel’s One Night with the King - an adaptation of Tommy Tenny’s novel about Esther. This is going to be one of the first film’s released by the brand new “Fox Faith” label. Its release has been delayed by almost 2 years. The cast list, however, is impressive. In addition to Tiffany Dupont as the lead, Peter O'Toole, Omar Shrif and John Rhys Davies are also involved.

Color of the Cross - In Cinemas from 27th October
Also of great interest is the release of Jean Claude La Marre’s Color of the Cross, which is the first historical life of Jesus film to use a black actor to play Jesus. It’s unclear whether or not this is another “Fox Faith” film or not – certainly they will be distributing the DVD when that is released.

Jesus of Nazareth - Full version DVD Region 2 Release 16th October
This month also sees the long overdue region 2 DVD release of Jesus of Nazareth (1977). Whilst the 4 and a half hour version has been available for a while it’s good to see the proper version get released at last. As a bonus, it’s going to come with a nice metallic case. I’ll be reviewing the film later in the month in my first ever Jesus Films Podcast, and post a brief review of the DVD shortly.

Mary - DVD Release on 3rd October
Having only received a very limited cinematic release the region 2 DVD for Abel Ferrara’s Mary goes on sale on the 3rd. Ferrara’s film sounds like it is very, much along similar lines to Jesus of Montreal in terms of approach to its religious subject matter, but of course its theme and form maybe completely different. The film is about an actress playing Mary Magdalene in a film whose involvement with the film inspires her to go on a spiritual journey.

The Nativity Story at Heartland Film Festival
As I mentioned last week, Catherine Hardwicke’s The Nativity Story will be getting it’s first public viewing at the Heartland Film Festival. A week or so later the album "The Nativity Story: Sacred Songs" will be available to buy.

So plenty to look forward too. I’m slightly envious of those of you in North America as One Night With the King and Color of the Cross won’t get released here, at least for a while. Whilst I hope that I get sent review copies for these films, I won’t know until nearer the time. That said Mary doesn’t look like it's going to get a region 1 DVD release for sometime so I guess I’ll have to take the rough with the smooth.