Joshua Films Redux

Back in 2009 I wrote a post on films about Joshua but I was a little short on ideas. Since then, however, I've become aware of several more, and indeed thought of several I should have included in the first place, so I thought it was about time I revisited the subject.

Filmmakers have approached the character of Joshua and the book that bears his name in three main ways: metaphorically, as a minor character in films about Moses and as the "hero" in adaptations of the Book of Joshua.

The earliest film to evoke Joshua was the silent film The Walls of Jericho (dir. Lloyd B. Carleton, 1914) but this was a modern day drama that used a story from the book of Joshua as a metaphorical reference point. A more famous example of this approach occurs in It Happened One Night (dir. Frank Capra, 1934) where Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert are forced to share a room together. To preserve propriety Gable hangs a blanket between their beds, but when the blanket comes down in the morning it's clear that Colbert's defences have too. She is now in love with him.

A more popular approach has been to include Joshua as a minor character in the story of Moses, as
Joshua also appears fleetingly in the Pentateuch. The two most famous filmic appearances of Joshua are John Derek's portrayal of him in DeMille's 1956 version of The Ten Commandments and Aaron Paul's in Exodus: Gods and Kings (dir. Ridley Scott, 2014). In both films Joshua is portrayed as a upright, likeable and loyal assistant to Moses. In many ways however Joshua functions as a semi-fictional character - neither film features Pentateuchal episodes and he acts more as a stand-in for the audience. This is particularly true of Paul who poses the kinds of questions that the audience might also be asking.

The more extensive adaptations of Moses have featured incidents such as the victory over the Amalekites or his spying mission into Canaan. Moses the Lawgiver (dir. Gianfranco de Bosio, 1975) includes both of these incidents although the former is curiously unlike the biblical account. Instead of a battle led by Joshua whilst Aaron and Hur hold Moses' arms aloft, a fictional character comes up with a plan, which is then executed in the middle of the night Joshua's role is minimised. He is shown as one of the twelve spies however, and the closing scenes feature a montage of his victories over the Canaanites.

Also notable are Moses (dir.Roger Young, 1996) which includes ends with Joshua being commissioned, making his speech from the start of the Book of Joshua and then flashes forward to Joshua's final speech; and The Ten Commandments (dir. Robert Dornhelm, 2006) which includes the defeat of the Amalekites.

Given the controversy surrounding the Israelite's conquest in Canaan it's perhaps not surprising that filmmakers have tended to avoid portraying either Joshua the man, or any of the episodes from the book that bears his name. The only episode from the Book of Joshua to have been adapted – with the exception of The Living Bible's Joshua - The Conqueror (dir. Edward Dew, 1958) - is the fall of Jericho. Portrayals of this incident have handled the question of divinely authorised violence in very different ways.

Dew's unvarnished film offers little interpretation aside from choosing not to show any of the inhabitants of Jericho other than Rahab's family, denying their voice and their humanity. The effect of not doing so becomes apparent moments later when Achan is stoned for theft. Giving him a voice makes the sentence seem unfair, a voice those from Jericho were denied.

Nine years later Joshua appeared again in the US TV series The Time Tunnel where each week two scientists materialised in a different historical period. The only story from the Bible to be covered by the series is The Walls of Jericho (1967), but crucially here the scientists are transported to their next adventure before the walls of the city come tumbling down.

A different appraoch is that of Joshua at Jericho (dir. James L. Conway, 1978) from the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series which significantly distorts the biblical text to make the divinely sanctioned violence less unpalatable. Jericho is "controlled by ruthless Hittites" who commit human sacrifices; various ethically dubious acts occur inside the city; Jericho's pudgy king is childish, whining and irritating, whilst the head of his army is proud, stubborn and arrogant. There's even a scene where the Hittites steal the Israelites' children in order to sacrifice them to their gods. In essence, the film does everything it possibly can to demonise the residents of Jericho and paint them in a negative light, such that it's almost impossible to feel sympathy for them.

In contrast the episode Homeland (dir. Tony Mitchell, 2013) from the History Channel's dramatised series The Bible does not seem to find the idea of divine violence particularly troubling. Indeed, many other episodes in the series enhance existing violent elements in the various stories, or invent them where none is to be found in the text. Such invention is minimised in this episode however, normalising the actions of Joshua and his soldiers. It also emphasises God's role in the city's destruction, not only sending an angel to inform Joshua of his mission, but also heavily use of special effects as Jericho's walls come tumbling down. Joshua himself is portrayed as an affable, calm and approachable general.

Surprisingly given the subject matter there are also several animated versions of the story including those from The Greatest Heroes and Legends in the Bible series narrated by Charlton Heston's voice, Hannah-Barbera's Greatest Adventure Stories of the Bible, the Beginners Bible, an entry from the "Bible Stories for Children" series called Joshua and the Promised Land and Veggie Tales' version Josh and the Big Wall! (1997).

There is a potential fourth approach which has not yet been tried, namely making a subversive version adaptation of this story, in a similar vein to Aronofsky's Noah, which portrays Joshua as a villain overseeing a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Canaanites. However, it would likely alienate a lot of the key target audience and given the furore around Noah and the fact that Joshua's story is less well known such an adaptation seems unlikely at the moment. Furthermore the most recent adaptation from The Bible series suggests that, far from finding Joshua's campaign in Canaan troubling, the likely target audience for a further adaptation of this story might find the violence more palatable than previous generations, rather than less.

Joshua the Conqueror (1958)

Until recently there had been precious few films about Joshua, though for some reason when I wrote a previous post on the subject I forgot about this entry from the Living Bible Old Testament series. As I was researching for something else I'm writing at the moment I thought it was probably time I posted a few comments on it.

As always the series plays things pretty straight. In this case however that makes this little film more distinctive as it's the only film which portrays any other incident from the Book of Joshua aside from the victory over Jericho.

As you would expect the victory over Jericho is the film's high point, but it also manages to squeeze in other episodes such as the miraculous crossing of the River Jordan and Achan's sin and the resulting defeat to the army of Ai.

These films are always low budget, and I generally avoid criticising a film for that alone, however here the "miraclous" crossing of the Jordan scene really does lack any imagination. One minute we're shown a swelling, fast-flowing river, then there's a cut to Joshua, a description of the miracle and then just a close up of some feet running over some rocks. I accept that the film would not be able to match DeMille level special effects, but if you read DeMille's autobiography there's a bit in it where he discusses how in order to make the effect look right in his 1923 The Ten Commandments the entire cast and crew spent a frentic few minutes gathering bits of seaweed to scatter on the ground to make it look realistic before the angle of the sun change too much. Three's no such attention to detail here such that low budget and low creativity really make the moment laughable.

In contrast when the walls of Jericho come tumbling down there's at least some judicious cuts and thought that has gone into the process in order to make the equally low budget miracle at least look credible. It's still a little hard not to smile to oneself, but with so few versions of certain stories, where would we be without the Living Bible.

One thing that is noticeable about the fall of Jericho is that, aside from Rahab (dressed in red) and her family, we never see another of the people of Jericho. The film narrates their slaughter, but keeps them off screen. This has the effect of hiding the faces of the victims, silencing their voices and making their destruction less troubling. To it's credit the film isn't at pains to demonise them, but it does marginalise their voice and prevent viewers from empathising with them.

Finally, as I've already mentioned, this is the only film I know of which covers the incident where Achan steals some of the "devoted things" (7:1), angering God so much that he causes Israel to be defeated and then orders the Israelites stone/burn him to death. It's not hard to see why this incident might be excluded even for a team of filmmakers intent on trying adapting the Book of Joshua. Visualising it, however, only makes it seem all the harsher than reading it. I suppose though that this is the flip side of the criticism I levelled at the film not showing any dying Jericonians. Portraying Achan's brutal treatment does raise questions as to either the goodness of God's character, or the interpretation of how the vent has been recorded.

Anyway here's a scene guide for the film. All references are from the book of Joshua:

God’s Commission to Joshua (1:1-9)
Spies sent to Jericho meet Rahab (2:1-24)
Miraculous crossing of the Jordan (3:1-17; 4:10-18)
12 Stones set up at Gilgal (4:1-9,19-24)
Joshua’s Vision (5:13-15)
Processions around Jericho (6:1-14)
Fall of Jericho (6:15-25)
Achan’s Sin (7:1,21)
Defeat at Ai (7:2-5)
Achan’s death (7:6-26)
Joshua renews the covenant (8:30-35)
Joshua’s farewell speech (23:1-24:28)

Incidentally, I opened this by saying "until recently". The last few years have seen Joshua gaining higher profile than almost ever before, firstly with his escapades being covered in the History Channel's series The Bible and then with the character featuring in Exodus Gods and Kings.

Films About Joshua

I've revisted this subject, given it more thought and totally rewritten it, including covering more films, here.
I had an email asking me about films featuring Joshua, and so I thought I would post up an expanded version of my reply.

The most famous appearance of Joshua in the movies is John Derek's portrayal of him in DeMille's 1956 version of The Ten Commandments (pictured above). In many ways however Derek is playing a semi-fictional character. Joshua is only an occasional character in Exodus. Whilst later books significantly develop his character we're told precious little of his early life. DeMille invents a good deal, but the film itself has little to say about the man who conquered Canaan.

But aside from this incarnation, the book of Joshua is largely ignored in Bible films. It's perhaps not surprising given it's difficult subject matter. The only live action dramatic version I am familiar with is the Joshua at Jericho, from the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series. I discussed this film at some length then. It's a particularly interesting example of how Bible films distort the original text to make the stories they portray more palatable. So this film talks about Jericho being controlled by ruthless Hittites who committed human sacrifices; various ethically dubious acts are shown occurring inside the city; Jericho's king is annoying, childish, overweight, whining and ultra camp; whilst the head of the army is proud, stubborn and arrogant. There's even a scene where the Hittites steal the Israelites' children in order to sacrifice them to their gods. In essence, the film does everything it possibly can to demonise the residents of Jericho and paint them in a negative light. The portrayal of the Israelites in the Bible is hardly balanced, but it is much more shades of grey. We're told little of the Canaanites other than that they worship the wrong Gods and that they possess the land assigned for Israel. The changes made to the film polarise the respective camps into shades black and white, such that it's almost impossible to feel sympathy for the residents of Jericho who's major crime is living in the wrong place.

This film is still only available on VHS, but there are copies at Amazon.

Otherwise, all there is is a four cartoon versions. I'm familiar with three of these series, though unfortunately not the episodes in question. The Greatest Heroes and Legends in the Bible is best known for featuring Charlton Heston's voice, and as you might expect it plays it fairly safe, with no cartoony gimmicks. That contrasts quite strongly with the Greatest Adventure Stories of the Bible series by Hannah-Barbera which frames each episode with a Quantum Leap-esque linking story introducing the gang of modern day children who will experience these events first hand. I call these stories the Scooby Doo versions because several of the quirks of that series have been reused here.

Then there's the Beginners Bible version which is linked to the children's Bible of the same name. I've not yet worked out which of these came first, but both sanitise the text often introducing banal elements into the bargain. I discussed the Daniel entry in this series a couple of years ago as well.

Lastly, there's also this film that turned up searching Amazon, but there's little to go on.

That said, Joshua does feature in some of the documentary films about the Bible. I don't, at present, have time to list them all, but I know there's a good deal of coverage of this story in The Bible's Buried Secrets which I reviewed last year and which is currently available to buy.

Other than that, there's not much to go on. I suspect, however, that the story might make a fleeting appearance in The God Complex, and that it may not be long before we see a subversive version of this film, which portrays Joshua as a villain. Who knows?

The Passion of Joshua, the Jew

Just came across this title on Amazon searching for films about Joshua. Released the year after The Passion of the Christ it was one of the many films to try and present itself as the anti-passion film.

Precious little information remains at the official website, but it is available on DVD at Amazon which gives the following product description:

The Passion Of Joshua The Jew traces the journey of a young scholar, believed by an influential rabbi to be the new Messiah, across land and sea, encountering believers of the Qur’an, the Gospels and the Torah, to his tragic destiny, paralleling the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, another Jewish scholar who fell victim to prejudice masquerading as authority.

The Amazon page also includes this customer review which tells us a good deal more about the film.

In 1492, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand declared Spain to be a Roman Catholic country, and that the Jews and Moslems who had peacefully coexisted as Spaniards for centuries were now given three months to leave the country...for good.

THE PASSION OF JOSHUA,THE JEW is a very clever film that delves into the historical aspects of two families,one Jewish and the other Moslem,who had been friends and take different paths eventually in fleeing Spain.The script,though, centers on the Jewish family and they head for "safe haven." What essentially is the crux of this film is the family's arrival in a town where they must disguise themselves as Christians at the feast of "The Carazza" or Passion Play.This is the event of the Easter scene each year and everyone has a part.What so cleverly and sadly happens is when the son,Joshua, plays the the part of Jesus, The Messiah, actually believing that he IS the Messiah!.It ends up rather tragically.

This film is a clever and stinging indictment on the Catholic Church and their persecution of the Jews in following years leading into The Inquisition.This is an odd,yet very interesting twist on how the Spanish Inquisition was very much another 33AD Passion Play gone bed!.Unique and highly recommended.

That this film quotes and apology from the now deceased Pope John Paul with an apology to the Jews for The Catholics part in their mistreatment is all the more poignant at the conclusion of this film.

Aspects of this sound similar to the 2002 film Inquisition starring Derek Jacobi, which was based on the short story "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor", from Dostoyevsky's novel "The Brothers Karamazov". Producers Xenon pictures deal with a lot of Spanish related cinema, and the trailer and the host of Spanish-sounding actors' names suggest that not only will the film be set in Spain, but that is also seeking to give it a Spanish feel.

Sadly the sole review for the film on Rotten Tomatoes, appears to disagree with the 4 star review above. It comes from Jay Weissburg of Variety. Here's a brief quotation:

Bland direction is the least of the sins perpetrated by "The Passion of Joshua, the Jew," a historical pic billing itself as the anti-Gibson "Passion" but in reality little more than recruiting propaganda for Jews for Jesus. Conceived by helmer Pasquale Scimeca as a salvo against anti-Semitism, pic doesn't know how to handle its theme, and ends up championing the concept of the Christianized Jew rather than the universality of a Jewish Jesus-like figure during the Spanish Inquisition.

...the pedestrian nature of his screenplay, coscripted with Nennella Buonaiuto, also works against any well-meaning aims. Heavy-handed parallels between the Inquisition and present-day, with Jews and Muslims pointedly shown as brothers-in-exile, pushes the bounds of preachiness. Scene set-ups lack spontaneity.

Both reviews mention the leading character's involvement with a passion play so it appears that this film also plays around with some of the ideas in Jesus of Montreal. The links between this film and Passion of the Christ, Inquisition and Jesus of Montreal might be enough to tempt me to overlook the Variety review and invest in a copy. Watch this space.

Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Joshua at Jericho

I've been running a course with a few of my friends called Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years where we spend an evening looking at a different book of the Bible each month. This Monday we were looking at Joshua. One of the things I like to do is use clips from Bible films (assuming they tie in with what we're discussing), but Joshua is surprisingly under-represented in this respect. I'm currently reading Stephen Lang's "Bible on the Big Screen" and one of his theories is that the stories that were made into movies in the early days, and were successful have tended to be remade because of it, whilst others that didn't get covered in that early period have never quite made their mark, and have thus tended to be ignored. I also wonder with Joshua whether the subject matter has been considered too unpalatable for a wider audiences, particularly since the Holocaust.

In any case the only film version of the Joshua story I have is from the "Greatest Heroes of the Bible" TV series which aired on NBC in late 1978 and early 1979. I've only seen a few of this series, but they are generally very low budget. This episode pulls out a few special effects when Jericho's walls finally fall, but it's mainly in the form of drawn on lightning and a few pyrotechnics.

Despite the all round poor production values of this series it did provide me with a clip. One of the things I wanted to look at was how the biblical account is often altered in order to make some of these stories more palatable. They essentially load the dice in favour of the Israelites/God in order to make the death of God's "enemies" less troubling.

This film is perhaps the best example of this tendency I have ever seen. I used the opening piece of narration to show this tendency. It talks of Jericho being
impregnable, says it was controlled by ruthless Hittites controlled area, that the people had grown fat, become debased and filthy and that they committed human sacrifices. This is followed by a scene inside the city where we see children stealing and various of ethically dubious acts occuring. Whilst some of this is true, it's noticeably absent in the Jericho narrative itself.

As it happens I could have used various sections of this film for exactly the same purpose. Jericho's King - King Agadiz (Sidney Lassick) - is extremely hard to like. He is instantly annoying, childish, overweight, whining and super, super camp. Sidney Lassick is best known for his earlier role in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and those who saw him in that film will find it influences their perception of this role also.

Agadiz relies a great deal on his commander, Assurabi (Cameron Mitchell) who by contrast is proud, stubborn and arrogant. Whilst Agadiz flaps around wondering what to do Assurabi hatches a plot to lure the Israelites to the city (unaware that that is Israel's plan anyway by stealing their children (from a convenient canvas day nursery) and sacrificing them to their Gods. This episode is unacceptably fictional, being true to neither the letter nor the spirit of the book in question. When we're shown one of the children being sacrificed it is the cutest most passive child one could imagine. Later one of Jericho's ordinary citizen's is shown celebrating his sacrificing one of the Israelite children.

When the Israelites finally come to attack the city Assurabi and his comrades mock them and entice them further, whilst the priests and the king sacrifice a goat to their God that they have named Jehovah. In short, the film does everything it possibly can to demonise the residents of Jericho and paint them in a negative light. The portrayal of the Israelites and the Canaanites in the Bible is hardly balanced, but it is much more shades of grey. Joshua's people have just emerged from 40 years in the desert typified by moaning and their lack of faithfulness - we're told little of the Canaanites other than that they worship the wrong Gods and that they possess the land assigned for Israel. The changes made to the film polarise the respective camps into shades black and white. It's abundantly clear who the goodies are and who the baddies are, and almost impossible to feel sympathy for the residents of Jericho who's major crime is living in the wrong place.

In order to really do this, and to clarify why Rahab is saved the film spends an awfully large proportion of the film on fictional episodes, and doesn't really get to the meat of the story until towards the end of the film. The scenes work something like this:

[extra-biblical episode - Introduction]
Sending of the spies - (Josh 2:1)
[extra-biblical episode - King and commander plot]
[extra-biblical episode - Jericho attacks Israel]
[extra-biblical episode - Child sacrifice]
King hears of the spies - (Josh 2:2)
[extra-biblical episode - Rahab summons the spies]
Rahab's deal with the spies - (Josh 2:8-14)
Rahab covers for the spies - (Josh 2:3-6)
The spies escape - (Josh 2:15-21)
Spies report back - (Josh 2:23-24)
Joshua prays - (Josh 6:2)
Jericho locks its gates - (Josh 6:1)
Israelites march around Jericho - (Josh 6:6-14)
[extra-biblical episode - Joshua and his generals confer]
Fall of Jericho - (Josh 6:15-25)

One of the things that occurred to me whilst watching this is that the biblical Rahab's designation as a prostitute almost certainly meant she was a cult prostitute, so her inclusion not only in the people of Israel, but in the ancestors of both David and, therefore, Jesus is quite incredible. Unfortunately, the film isn't able to convey the radical turn around required here. When Rahab first appears it is immediately obvious who she is - she is the only red haired person in all of Jericho. By showing compassion right at the start of the film her character arc is somewhat truncated and her role in the film is much more temple dancer than temple prostitute.

As the film reaches it's conclusion it gets even more ridiculous. Assurabi's taunts degenerate to the point where he can only shout at Joshua "Let me hack you into bits…BIIIIIIITS!" Joshua isn't phased he's already seen God speak in a manner somewhat reminiscent of plume of polluted smoke billowing from the clouds. Besides he has to risk exhausting his troops by having them inexplicably jog on the spot for 10 minutes before they make their final charge. This is made all the stranger by the fact that the walls begin to fall when Joshua throws his sword into the ground. Like something out of a bad King Arthur movie (and goodness knows there have been plenty of them) the moment it lands point-in into the ground it's struck by lightning which sends a tremor along the ground which eventually fells the walls. Once inside it turns out that soldiers of Jericho don't actually have any ability with the sword. This is just as well for the Israelites - they are more than content to stick their swords under their enemies arms and hope the camera isn't watching too closely.

All in all then, this is a terrible, terrible film, and whilst it's a particularly pertinent example of the dice-loading tendency inherent in many Bible films, it has little value in and of itself.