Two new biblical shorts announced:Jael Drives the Nail and Our Child

Two weekends ago I had the privilege of being a judge for The Pitch film fund, which offers production finance, support and training to filmmakers, particularly those based on stories from Bible. At stake were two opportunities to get £30,000 funding each to make their short film – one for comedy and one for drama. 

This year we were spoilt for choice and so it's really exciting to know these two films will soon be made, possibly even in the next year.

Jael Drives the Nail

The first is Maddie Dai's Jael Drives the Nail a comedy that takes place in Jael's tent in the moments leading up to Sisera's death (Judges 4:17-24). The story has been a long-term favourite of mine and I was so glad to be able to include the only other major treatment of – Henri Andréani's Jaël et Sisera (1911) – it in my book.

Dai is a New Zealand-born, London-based cartoonist, screenwriter, illustrator and filmmaker, whose cartoons – many of which play with religious/classical ideas – appear in "The New Yorker". As a writer she contributed to the second series of Our Flag Means Death (2023) and wrote the very funny short film Ministry of Jingle (2023) [trailer] which was also her first film in the director's chair.

Dai's degree was in religious art and hopes to make a feature on the Book of Judith, so expect that to influence proceedings, although The Pitch's announcement promises a "modern dark comedic twist" on the subject, which seems to me a perfect way to approach it. I cannot wait to see the final result.

Our Child

I'm also excited to see Anatole Sloan's Our Child, a modernised take on the story of Hagar, Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 16 & 21) relocated to modern day Hong Kong. My favourite take on this story is a comedic one (The Real Old Testament, 2003), so it will be good to see a more serious approach to it, brought into the modern day. Having contributed to an entry for the Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception on this subject and written a blog post detailing some of the other takes on it and Sloan's approach seems like an excellent way to approach the story.

Sloan is of mixed British-Chinese descent and he has explained how his take on the story, which will revolve around a young surrogate mother, will reflect "issues that I saw growing up in East Asia". Sloan has also professed his desire "to draw on the cinematic language of that region".

Sloan's previous work has been on documentaries, including The Speeches which enabled him to work with an array of household names including Idris Elba, Glenn Close, Woody Harrelson, Olivia Coleman and King Charles III.
====
There's a further snippet about these films at the end of this article in Variety.

Jaël et Sisera (1911)

Amazingly this short film from 1911 is the only time any part of the story of Deborah (Judges 4-5) has been filmed in any kind of vaguely significant production. For this reason (and a few others) it's been one I've wanted to see for very many years and last week I happened to be at BFI Southbank -  where you can now access the BFI's digital library - and was able to walk in and watch it for free within a minute or two of arriving. If you're passing that way I very much recommend it. A few other old silent films are there to view as well. (For example, three films about Jephthah's daughter from a similar time period are there also).

Unfortunately, Deborah doesn't get to feature in this film either. Whilst Barak, Sisera, Jael and her husband Heber all get a part, Deborah not only remains off screen, but doesn't even get a mention in the intertitles. In some ways that's not entirely surprising, at only 10 minutes long the film has to trim the story right down and given the success of the biblical-women-slaying-Israelite-enemies-whilst-they-sleep genre (OK,mainly Judith) it's not that hard to see why Pathé and director Henri Andréani prioritised Jael.

The film starts outside Jael's tent. Things are a little unclear, but Sisera has seemingly conquered the camp because a group of Israelites are chained up, Jael is somewhat subdued and a minute or two into the picture Heber, previously described by an intertitle as being "friendly with Sisera", is brought in seemingly under a certain amount of duress. When nobody is looking Jael gesticulates towards the skies, and then breaks the chains of some of the Isarelites. They then flee to tell Barak about Sisera's location and his army marches our to battle. This opening shot, and indeed most, if not all of the film, is all filmed on location outdoors (as with Andréani's 1911 Caïn et Abel and a number of his other films).

On hearing the news of Sisera's location, Barak and his troops attack Sisera's camp in various locations, including the scene of the opening shot and one particularly pleasing shot as the Israelites chase Sisera's men up and over a hill. Another scene takes place on what looks like a beach though the intertitles describe God sending a "Kishon Torrent" to help Barak in an interesting dovetailing of Judges 4 verses 13 and 15. The torrent looks more like a lake or a sea, but the location does provide Andréani with a sizeable rock for Sisera's man to scramble upon in a fashion similar to Francis Danby's Painting "The Deluge" (c.1840), which also found its way into Darren Aronfsky's Noah (2014).

Sisera survives however, and creeps away somewhat stealthily, but Barak nevertheless manages to hunt him down. So it is that Sisera arrives back at Jael's tent and begs her to shelter him. In an echo of the first scene Jael gives Sisera water and he then collapses in exhaustion.Whilst he lies there unconscious she pulls up a large tent peg and drives it through his head (pictured above). The moment is surprisingly brutal. Whilst there's no blood and the action takes place in mid-shot, the repeated violent hammering is rather shocking.

Moments later Barak's army arrives, only to find Jael has done their work for him. Barak kneels besides Sisera's lifeless body and kisses the hem of her garment in tribute.

The quality of the print of the film is pretty impressive. I don't know enough about restoration and transfer to be able to tell whether this has been simply transferred to mp4 format or whether some restoration work has been done, but I should point out that the image above was taken rather hastily on my phone from the computer screen and so doesn't at all do it justice. The colour is quite striking, and consistent with Andréani's David et Goliath from the previous year. Particularly memorable is the shot panning up the hill as Sisera's troops seek to escape. As early biblical films goes it's an interesting mix of reliance on the text combined with the odd bit of dramatic licence when it suited the filmmakers, but perhaps most interesting is the use of somewhat shocking violence. Biblical films are well known for sword play, but rarely until the present century have they been quite so violent. Still, if ever a source text justifies such an approach, it's this.

I grandi condottieri (Great Leaders of the Bible: Samson and Gideon, 1965)

Of the handful of filmmakers who have made several biblical films, Marcello Baldi is perhaps the most underappreciated. I grandi condottieri, known in the English-speaking world as Samson and Gideon was the last of four films that Baldi made in the early to mid sixties along with I patriarchi (The Patriarchs, 1962) Giacobbe, l’uomo che lottò con dio (Jacob, the Man Who Fought with God, 1963) and Saul e David (1964) (see here for more details).

Here Baldi is only officially credited as the producer, but there's a good deal to suggest he shared at least some of the directing honours with the Spaniard Francisco Perez Dolz. Whilst the first part of the film - dealing with Gideon, was shot in Spain, the second half was shot at Cinecittà in Italy. There are also several moments which feel like Baldi's work elsewhere.

The differences between the two halves of the film, however, extend far beyond filming style. The first stars an affable Ivo Garrani as Gideon (below), but also Fernando Rey as God's messenger. The two form an unlikely friendship. Having delivered his initial message, Rey's character stays on help Gideon slim down his burgeoning volunteer army, advise on strategy and give Gideon the some much needed encouragement. The film has moments of humour (having had to reduce his army still further Gideon quips "I wonder why we don't charge the Midianites, just the two of us") and sees and initially grumpy Gideon become a more relaxed and inspiring leader. As one of only a tiny number of films covering the story of Gideon it's surprising that it goes beyond his initial victory over the Midianites to show him pursuing their leaders until they are captured and killed as well as some of the incidents with his son.

In contrast, the latter part of the film is more self-serious, even including moments of pathos. This section of the film is more typical of the Italian peplum films of this era, specifically the mythical muscleman movies that sprang up following the success of Pietro Francisci's 1958 film Le fatiche di Ercole (Hercules). These supernatural heroes pepla starred characters such as Hercules, Machiste and Goliath, tossed together with those from other historic myths in invented stories. In the ten years following Hercules at least 15 other such films were named after Samson (although on occasion the name of the lead character varied from country to country). The difference with this film however is that it is based on the established story, rather than one made up for the film.

Whereas Gideon remains covered up for the entirety of his section of the film, Samson is frequently shirtless. Whereas God's messenger is present with Gideon almost throughout, in the Samson segment he is experienced only as wind blowing and, perhaps, a voice-over. God doesn't appear again until the end of the film, and, even then, Samson is unable to perceive his presence.

As with the Gideon half of the film, the story sticks reasonably close to the original narratives, whilst still developing the characters a little. Samson (Anton Geesink) has been repeatedly defeating the Philistines's until one day he allows himself to be bound and carried into the Philistine camp, only to wreak victory with the jawbone of an ass. Samson then turns up at Gaza and destroys the gates before the Philistine leaders decide to enlist Delilah (Rosalba Neri) to trap him.

The real strength of the film though is its host of memorable images. Midianites burn Israelite fields as early as scene two. The burning of the Midianite camp, and Garrani's face superimposed over a montage of Israelite victories. In the Gideon section there's a view from the bottom of a well, the moment of realisation when Samson spots the ass' jawbone, shot of the upper echelons of Dagon's temple. All of these testify to Baldi's eye for striking composition.

Sadly though, the lack of a decent copy of the film - the main versions of it available for home viewing are cropped, dubbed and have a very poor quality image - make it hard to appreciate its strengths. Christopher Mulrooney gives it a good go, and makes some interesting observations about two of Baldi's other biblical films, but overall the film gets rather less attention than I think it merits. Perhaps one day Baldi's work (and indeed aht of Baldi/Francisco Perez Dolz) will become fashionable again and his contribution to both the sword and sandal genre and to the Bible on film will be re-evaluated and more widely appreciated.

Hostages; Jaël et Sisera (2013)

Whilst we await the results of the Israeli election I've been enjoying a TV series about the potential demise of another Israeli Prime Minister in Bnei Aruba (Hostages, 2013).

I mention it here because the lead character is Dr. Yael Danon, a surgeon who is held hostage the night before she is due to operate on the Israeli premier. The terrorists in question want her to see that he dies and whilst written like that it seems a little far-fetched it's actually pretty well done.

The reason it up here is the biblical overtones of the heroine's name, Yael, a variation on Jael, the woman in Judges who is reputed to have killed the Hebrews' enemy Sisera by luring him into her tent and then driving a tent peg through his head. It's the kind of powerful imagery that makes the story hard to forget, even though it's rarely discussed, and even more rarely portrayed on film. For those unfamiliar with Jael's appearance in Judges 4 here it is:

Now Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between King Jabin of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite. Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, ‘Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; have no fear.’ So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. Then he said to her, ‘Please give me a little water to drink; for I am thirsty.’ So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. He said to her, ‘Stand at the entrance of the tent, and if anybody comes and asks you, “Is anyone here?” say, “No.”’ But Jael wife of Heber took a tent-peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, until it went down into the ground—he was lying fast asleep from weariness—and he died. Then, as Barak came in pursuit of Sisera, Jael went out to meet him, and said to him, ‘Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.’ So he went into her tent; and there was Sisera lying dead, with the tent-peg in his temple.

Hostages isn't any kind of attempt to modernise the biblical narrative, but needless to say when the series' lead character is called Jael and starts waving sharp objects in the direction of the men who are "guests" in her home, it doesn't seem coincidental. Interestingly it's the kind of link that seemed a little too obvious to the show's original intended audience, but flies over the heads of the wider audience that the programme has found due to it's success.

The only film about Jael I'm aware of is Henri Andréani's 1911 Jaël et Sisera (Pathé). I've not had the pleasure but it's one of the film's discussed by David Shepherd in "The Bible on Silent Film", from where I've taken the image below.

According to Shepherd the film plays a little fast and loose with the biblical account. Jael is married to Sisera's friend Heber the Kenite who not only slays the Canaanite general, but also releases a group of Israelites from their imprisonment in the enemy camp. Shepherd concludes:

"While Israelite femme fatales such as Judith and Jael had already enjoyed a long history of glorification and vilification prior to their emergence on the silent screen, Andréani's choice of Jael and treatment of her can hardly be a coincidence given the prominence enjoyed by feminine heroines, often armed and dangerous, within early sensational melodrama."

Shepherd also notes that the film omits Deborah who is the character that the Bible chooses to focus on.

The film is still in existence; there's a copy in the BFI archive for starters, although sadly they appear to have inexplicably ditched their excellent Film and TV database and replaced it with a rather dumbed down their archive website. Sadly the new version no longer offer plot summaries for the film but you can read a little more on their Collections Search page. Sadly, it's also not covered by Campbell and Pitts. Thankfully there is a little summary (and the original poster) courtesy of the Foundation Jérôme Seydoux-Pathé:

The early scenes, tumultuous, violent and colourful in a wild and grandiose setting, depict the bloody struggle that divided the barbarian camp of Sisera from Barak, leader of the Israelites. In the first tableaux, we are at Sisera's camp where Jael, wife of Heber, delivers her fellow Jewish prisoners. They flee, revealing the location of Sisera's camp and Barak decides to march against his enemy. After a fight, Sisera's army is thrown into the Kishon water torrent. Only Sisera, escapes the massacre, fleeing his conqueror/enemy. Cornered, exhausted, he begs for asylum under the tent of Jael, who gives him hospitality. But while the fugitive, overcome by fatigue, falls asleep deeply, Jael, takes advantage of his sleep and kills him, thus delivering the Israelites from their persecutor. God is acclaimed by his people as a liberator.

Jephthah in Film

It seems like a bit of a cheat to call this piece the definitive guide to Jephthah in film; after all there are only two of them. Aside from this pair of early silent films, the complex and controversial story of Jephthah has been overlooked by filmmakers. As the cost of producing movies escalated exponentially from the very early silent era to today, so the financial risk in making films has increased, leaving producers uneasy about adopting subjects which even the majority of those interested in the Bible find unpalatable. In short increasing spectacle nudged filmmakers towards an increased conservatism, and so whilst some filmmakers have persisted in seeking support to explore difficult, insular and challenging material, such as Jephthah, they tend not to adapt conservative material such as the Bible. Even those who have done (Huston, Pasolini, Rosellini, Scorsese and Arcand) have tended to opt towards the more popular stories rather than those of the more obscure characters from lesser known Old Testament histories, Amos Gitai being a notable exception.

As a result to date we are left with only two Jephthah films, or, to be more correct, only two films about Jephthah's daughter. The distinction is not just in order to reflect that both films (1909 and 1913) share that title, but also because both films can be seen to be more about this unnamed widow that her rash and barbaric father.

The distinction is easier to appreciate with the later film. There are a few excellent shots of Jephthah during the battle -his vow to God as the battle rages down behind him and that of him stealthily creeping past the camera a little while later - but his recall to the leadership of the Gileadites, or his account of Hebrew history to his enemy are omitted and replaced with the fictional story of his daughters attempted elopement during her tour of the mountains.

As melodrama it is overwrought and non-sensical: the affair ends in Romeo-and-Juliette-esque tragedy, with the only mild comfort for the viewer perhaps being the idea that Jephthah's daughter and her lover Zebah we're together in death the way they could not be in life. Yet as theology it draws attention to the face of the victim. Indeed the biblical account portrays Jephthah's daughter as the classic sacrificial victim, not only chosen for death to fulfil a bargain with a cruel God, but also a seemingly willing victim. There are other ways to read the text but what this film does is give the lump of meat for the sacrificial offering a name (well almost), a face, a personality and a story. Girard argues that the radical break that the crucifixion makes is allowing to see, for the first time, the face of the victim. This film does likewise.

Whilst the earlier 1909 version of Jephthah's Daughter is only a mere 6 minutes long, it to goes beyond the boundaries of the original story in humanising the daughter and judging in her favour in contrast to her father's. Whilst the actor's overwrought performance on seeing his daughter is the one to be sacrificed is typical of acting styles of the time, it only serves to weaken modern audiences' connection with Jephthah heightening the characlter's apparent stupidity.

The critical moment occurs as the flames lap around the daughter's corpse, suddenly she stands serenely erect before them glowing as if resurrected. It evokes so many other biblical stories not least Shadrach, Meshach and Abenbego miraculously survivng Nebuchudnezzar's furnace and the resurrection of Christ.

At time of writing it is 100 years since the last film we know of about Jephthah was produced and whilst many reasons could be out forward as to why the story was never adapted again, perhaps the answer lies in the events of the following year. 1914 saw the outbreak of the First World War. With stories rife of ageing political leaders sending their children out to be (often) needlessly sacrificed for the sake of military success, it is more than possible that the audience would no longer stomach pious retellings of the story of Jephthah and his daughter.

Jephthah's Daughter (1913)

Four years after the 1909 Vitagraph film of the same name Warner's Features released another Jephthah's Daughter, four times the length of the original (though at 25 minutes it was still far shorter than some of the 70+minute films that were starting to be made elsewhere). The film was produced by J. Farrell McDonald who directed 50 film between 1912 and 1917 and went on to have acting roles in over 300 films including bit parts in such great films as Sunrise, It's a Wonderful Life, My Darling Clementine and Meet John Doe.

The real strength of this film was its compositions. The image below is perhaps my favourite from a silent Bible film. The opening shot (above) is also very interesting taken with the camera standing high up with Jephthah and his men in the foreground whilst the battle rages on lower ground behind them. Jephthah's position on high ground is apt. Not only is he the leader who stands above them, it also reflects the traditions around spirituality and high places.

The plot itself contains significant deviations from Judges 11, mainly omitting Jephthah's longish speech to the King of Ammon and inserting an overblown love story that only unfolds once Jephthah's daughter heads for her time in the mountains. the biblical material is skimmed over quite quickly. The opening title card gives way for the battle scene described above, just in time for Jephthah to make his vow. Critically he uses "whatsoever" rather than whosoever.

Unusually, for the era, the film is still introducing credits by this point, so we are told the Jephthah's daughter is played by Constance Crawley and her lover Zebah by Arthur Maude. That same year the pair would also star together in another Bible film The Shadow of Nazareth (stills here) a love triangle between Crawley's Judith, Maude's Barabbas and Caiaphas (Joe Harris). The year before she made this film Crawley had suffered a severe bout of tuberculosis, from which she never truly recovered, dying tragically young in 1919. Crawley and Maude starred in a string of films together, many of which, like this one, were directed by Maude, and rumours have persisted that the pair were lovers.

It's not too surprising, then, to find Crawley and Maude playing each other's love interests here too. Zebah has a vision of / flashback to Crawley's character declaring her love for him. There's some suggestion that she is in peril and crying out for help. Having previously offered to do so, Zebah kidnaps Jephthah's daughter and some of her maids (?) as they roam the hills in their mourning period.

Being an established war hero, Jephthah tries to find them and there's quite a long sequence of shots where Jephthah and his men hunt Zebah down. Eventually, after a tip off from Zebah's sister, Jephthah catches the pair but, as I think is obvious from the image below, his daughter is deeply conflicted between the man she loves and her duty to her father/God.

Jephthah kills Zebah leaving his daughter to declare her love for the Zebah and offering to die in his place. It's too late of course and so Jephthah's daughter stabs herself in a gesture strongly reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet. Crawley had appeared in many Shakespearan plays prior to becoming a movie actress and 1916 saw her return to the stage for her last great in Julius Caesar, so perhaps the Shakespearean undertones here should not be too surprising.

Sadly though it does seem to result in leaving the rest of the plot rather nonsensical. The death of the daughter (and it would have been so much easier if Maude had given her character a name) leaves both Zebah's love and Jephthah's vow unfulfilled. Perhaps this is fair enough given the film's subtitle A Tragedy from the Scriptures. The daughter's death is deeply unsatisfying on a narrative level, but perhaps that dissatisfaction leads us to re-examine the original story in a way that a more conventional ending might not have done.

Furthermore, it's hard to think of an ending would have been more satisfactory. The daughter's obedient death at her father's hand would seem even worse now that she has been so significantly fleshed out as a women with a life and a love of her own. Conversely her successful elopement would be to take a path that the film had seemingly ruled out from the start.

Seen from the point of feminist theory the ending is even more interesting. In contrast to the love triangle of Maude's The Shadow of Nazareth, her there is a power triangle. Crawley's father views his daughter as a thing that can be used to make bargains, even to the extent of offering her up for a sacrificial death. Whilst on the other hand there is the chief bandit Zebah - presumably named after the Midianite king from Judges 8 - who kidnaps her against her will. Whilst she eventually falls for him, his estranged sister (and Deborah's best friend) still considers him a malignant force, ultimately choosing to betray him in order to protect her friend. The daughter's death at her own hand highlights the extent to which she is trapped, but renders her not as a powerless victim, but as a figure who is still able to make decision and determine the course of her own life.

Writing about this film less than 24 hours after the final episode of Breaking Bad also raises the question of how tidy the end of a narrative should be. If, from a narrative point of view, the ending is unsatisfactory then perhaps, given the subject matter, this is rightfully so. The story is disturbing. It's from a book that is steeped in the moral ambiguity of characters simply doing "what is right in their own eyes". And a story about a man that makes a deal with God to kill his daughter in exchange for a victorious battle; and a God who seems either to endorse his actions - or at the very least unwilling / unable to intervene, should not be let off the hook so easily.

====

The BFI archive doesn't have a plot summary and neither do Campbell and Pitts, but I'll include the one provided at the Ancient World in Cinema II event in 2009.

Jephthah's Daughter (US, J. Farrell Macdonald, 1913) 25 mins.
"A tragedy from the scriptures". In battle, Jephthah vows that if he is victorious he will sacrifice to God the first creature he meets on his return. His daughter and her servant Deborah (awaiting news of the outcome) meet Deborah's long lost brother, the wily robber chief Zebah. The victorious Jephthah is greeted by his daughter and reveals to her his vow. Zebah sends spies to follow the daughter and capture her as she rides in a wagon. He holds her in the woods and tried to woo her. Two months later, Deborah chooses to betray her brother in order to protect her mistress. Zebah is wounded and captured, accompanied by the daughter who is now in love with him. SHe asks her father to spare Zebah in return for her readiness to be sacrifices, but the two lovers die.

Jephthah's Daughter (1909)

Having meandered in my last few blog posts I thought I really ought to get back on talking about Bible films again. I'm still working my way through the silent bible films I studied from the Joye collection almost a year ago now - not to mention those I saw back in 2009 for which I still need to write up my notes.

The next couple are to be a pair of films about the little celebrated Hebrew judge Jephthah from Judges 11. It's a notoriously difficult text, not least because of what is arguably the Bible's "what the...?" moment. I've always wondered - and theologians have utterly failed to convincingly answer - what Jephthah thought was going to happen. So one of the main things that interested me about these films was whether they would shed any light on that particular issue.

The answer, sadly, is, not really, but given that, as far as I'm aware, these are the only two films a=made about this story I thought it was worth me recording a few thoughts for posterity.

The first film is Vitagraph's 1909 film Jephthah's Daughter. The version I saw had German intertitles so I was relying on my weak grasp of German and my knowledge of the story to help. It was fortunate with this first film that it stuck fairly close to the story from Judges. I've included all of the intertitles here as I needed to write them down at least and I thought there might be others who were interested. I've also provided a translation though it leans rather heavily on Google Translate. I should point out though that there are a few places where I may have made some errors in writing them down or some of the intertitles may have included errors. So without the means to verify the at present, here is the outline of the story with a translation of the intertitles as I recorded them suspected errors are marked with a *.

To an extent, the opening title card rather gives the ending away. This is not going to be a happy film.

"Jephthah's Tochter" eine biblische tragödie
["Jephthah's daughter," a biblical tragedy]

A second card appears before the opening scene explaining the set up.

Jephthah bereitet sich wieder die ammoniter zu streiten
[Jephthah prepares to fight the Ammonites again]

Jephthah arrives home hugs his daughter and immediately a group of Gileadites arrive. If you sense any annoyance on behalf of the daughter just wait until you see what happens later. Jephthah celebrates, presumably signifying his acceptance back into the Gileadites and heads off with his new friends leaving his daughter heartbroken. It's interesting how the film heightens the daughter's poor hand. Not only is she soon to end up as a human sacrifice to a God who consistently explains that he hates them, but she's also got abandonment issues.

The next intertitle is perhaps the hardest to translate well:

Jephthahs Abzug
[Jephthah's departure]

Other alternatives for "Abzug" are deduction (think tax, not Sherlock), withdrawal, trigger and vent. The problem here is that not only am I translating from a language I don't really speak, but also the occasion on which is was written is over a century ago. The Kaiserian use of the word may very well difficult significantly than from today. The reason I went with "departure" over the other eight possibilities that Google offers is that this is what we see in the very next scene. A procession moves off with Jephthah hugging his wife and daughter as he departs.

The long dialogue between Jephthah/Israel and the (king of) the Ammonites is excluded so we cut straight to:

Der Abend vor der Schlacht
[The evening before the battle]
Jephthahs Gelübde
[Jephthah's vow]

There's a brief shot of the GIleadite camp with Jephthah dispatching various orders, and then comes his infamous prayer:

"O Herr, Giebst du die kinder Ammon in meine hände, se# will ich, was zu meiner haustüre mir entgegengehet*, wenn ich im frieden wiederkehre, dir zum brandopfern opfern."
["O Lord, (if) you give the children of Ammon into my hands, I want to sacrifice as a burnt sacrifice to you what comes to meet me on my doorstep when I return in peace."]

One of the things that is interesting here is that the German (and as I understand it the Hebrew) doesn't clarify whether Jephthah is expecting one thing on his doorstep or several. The English translations always seem a bit awkward here and are pretty well divided between those that opt for "whatever comes out of my door" suggesting Jephthah expected an animal and was merely unlucky, and those which choose "whoever", implying Jephthah had already decided to sacrifice someone, it was just unfortunate that his daughter was quickest off the mark. In some ways the question is moot. Whichever of those best translates what he actually said, he was prepared to commit human sacrifice if it meant winning his battle. Put like that it sounds rather brutal (and I suggest it is) but then history is full of military leaders who have taken a risk that may mean sacrificing "friendly" human lives in the pursuit of a military goal.

Were this story to be filmed again today, there's no doubt that a good deal of screen time would be dedicated to the battle where the tension would be ratcheted up. Here (again) the intertitles give things away for those who didn't know the story.

Jephthah*s Sieg
[Jephthah's victory]

The ensuing battle scene is chaotic and very hard to follow. The next intertitle follows suit:

Und als Jephthah wieder heim kehrte kam ihm seine einzige tochter entgegen
[And as Jephthah returned home again, his only daughter met him]

We're then shown Jephthah returning home as part of a victory procession. His daughter's appearance is very sudden and a crestfallen Jephthah has to explain his rash promise to his "lucky" daughter with a brief shot of the two in conversation splitting up the following two titles.

Jephthah teilt sein Gelübde seiner tochter mit
[Jephthah shares his vows with his daughter, but]

Sie Aber bat ihren Vater ihr zwei Monate zu lassen um ihre Jungfrauschaft zu beweinen
[she asked her father to let her two months to bewail her virginity]

Jephthah heads home to explain things to his wife (and I really wish the Bible had recorded her reaction) whilst his daughter heads to the hills.

Jephthah sandte seine tochter mit ihren gespielen zwei monate auf den bergen.
[Jephthah sent his daughter, with her playmates, for two months in the mountains.]

There's a brief clip of the daughter playing badminton with Table Tennis bats before they all say bye and she shuts a curtain so that not only can they not see her, but neither can we. The final intertitle occurs here and simply says:

"Das brandopfer"
["This holocaust^"]

Again the translation is interesting here, for this is one such word where I imagine the modern use is significantly different from the one from the time when the film was made. Then the word would naturally be understood as a burnt sacrifice, unpleasant, but with far less by way of connotation that the word "holocaust" has for us today. I've used the carat symbol to note that the same word is used above, but the modern meaning is far more powerful than it was then. That said there is something relevant in translating it with a modern translation. Jephthah's sacrifice should horrify us. There's no comparison to the actions of the Nazis in terms of scale, but in terms of letting misguided idealism shroud extremists from their inhumanity it's pretty shocking. It's depressing how many people consider this passage to be a fable warning us about making rash promises. Closer to the mark might be that it's an exploration of the lostness of humanity. If there is a lesson here perhaps it's that sometimes breaking a promise to God isn't the worse thing you can do - he might well prefer you to break a promise rather than follow through with it. Perhaps it just serves as a reminder as to how mired in the cultic religions of their neighbours Israel was at this point in history.

The scene itself is clearly where the vast majority of the artistic decisions were made. There's a sacrificial altar table, a crowd. The daughter hugs her mother. Jephthah looks a bit put out though his daughter is not overly upset, reflecting her apparent willingness in the text to let her father see through his vow. Then Jephthah stabs her himself and lights the fire. The final shot though is dramatic as reproduced below as a Jepthah's daughter reappears as a ghostly apparition standing bolt upright. There's something very reminiscent of scenes of Jesus' resurrection / ascension from the early Jesus films. The daughter is clearly vindicated, but Jephthah himself is obscured from our view. Just as the story's eitiology only recalls the actions of the daughter not the father so in her cinematic light, he is cast into the darkness.Campbell and Pitts do not mention this film, but the BFI archive does include the following synopsis:

The Biblical story of Jephthah's vow. Jephthah takes leave of his wife and daughter before setting off with his troops to fight the Ammonites. On the eve of battle, he vows that he will sacrifice to Jehovah the first creature to greet him, should he return victorious. The Ammonites are defeated. On his return, Jephthah is dismayed when the first creature to greet him is his daughter. On learning of her fate, she begs for two months' grace. Together they break the news to Jephthah's wife. The daughter plays with her friends during the two months' grace. Finally she mounts the sacrificial altar, and her father raises his dagger. He subsequently sets fire to the pyre, and the flames engulf her corpse. Her spirit appears above the pyre (536ft).

At about 7 minutes long the film was made for Vitagrah (US) by co-founder J(im). Stuart Blackton. Blackton is remembered for Vitagraph's many Shakespearean adaptations, mercilessly mocked years later by his co-producer, and for being an industry spokesman. His many historical films were marked by a commitment to period detail and for humanising his characters. He also produced the better known Life of Moses a five reeler that began to be released later that same year.

Samson et Dalila

Ferdinand Zecca, Pathé, France, 1902, 3 mins.
The earliest film of those shown at the Ancient World in Cinema event was Samson et Dalila (Samson and Delilah) from 1902. Strangely it was also one of the few shown on the day for which I've been able to find any sort of production image.

Given its age, it's no surprise that this is also one of the shortest of the films shown. Indeed the film starts when the story of Samson is almost over. Delilah has already extracted Samson's secret from him; all that now remains is for her to out it to the test. Putting aside from the other incidents in Samson's life, and looking solely at the Samson and Delilah story, it seems to me that the dramatic interest in the tale is about the conflict between the two, which climaxes when Samson finally reveals his secret. So it's strange that this film begins its version of events immediately after this point.

Samson isn't really shaved here, in fact when he awakes he still has rather more hair and beard than is typical today, but I guess something more convincing may have been more difficult to pull off at such an early stage in proceedings (though an "O Brother Where Art Thou-type beard-on-a-string would probably have bee acceptable in 1902.

There follows Samson's arrest and imprisonment tied to a millstone, but it's the temple scene that's really interesting. Firstly because Samson's appearance is preceeded by a troupe of dancing girls giving a fairly lengthy performance. Given the very short total running time of the film, this sequence takes a very large proportion of it. One wonders how this came to be. Of course, what's interesting is that such deviations would become a staple part of the biblical epic genre. You don't have to think for too long before numerous descendants of this sequence - scantily clad girls dancing for the benefit of the viewer, if not the plot - spring easily to mind. And introducing non-biblical episodes into the story, sometimes at the expense of great chunks of a film's runtime, has gone on to become the norm, rather than an exception as it was in the time of these films.

The downside of this portracted sequence, at least from the point of view the story is meant to be understood from, is that it gives us a degree of sympathy for the girls whose performance is rewarded by being crushed by not-particularly heavy looking cinema stand-in stones. That contrasts with Samson who we've had little time to get acquainted with. The moments we do have do this quite well - his despair at finding his hair cut, the forlorn figure operating the mill and his thoughts (And prayers) moments before brining the roof down on the Philistine temple.

The biggest surprise, however, is Samson's ascent to Heaven, portrayed in a style very familiar to those conversant with Zecca's The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. Given that that film was compiled over a number of years, it's hard to know which scene came first. There are plenty of other Pathé trademarks as well, such as the hand coloured film and the distinctive cotuming.

The film is the first to be mentioned in "The Bible on Film" (as the Old Testament section comes before the New). Campbell and Pitts have this to say:

SAMSON AND DELILAH
1903, France, Pathé, 15 minutes B/W
Director: Ferdinand Zecca
Perhaps the first film version of the story of mighty Samson, from the Book of Judges, whose physical strength could not keep him from falling under the spell of the beautiful, but evil, Delilah.

There's a slight discrepancy in the film's stated length which is somewhere between Campbell and Pitts's 15 minues and the BFI's 3. The BFI archive has little more to say although they may be behind this synopsis on the UCL website:

Delilah cuts off Samson's locks. Bereft of his strength, he turns a millstone in prison. Brought back, the shackled Samson tears away the pillars of the temple where he has been publicly humiliated, causing it to crash down in pieces. Samson's triumphant spirit, accompanied by angels, rises out of the ruins.

And there's also an entry (in French) from the Pathé database.

The Book of Judges and Pulp Fiction

First off, let me start by saying that I realise this is a bit tenuous, but sometimes idle speculation can be a lot of fun and not entirely worthless so I though I'd post this anyway.

I'm currently running a course called Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years, and this month we're looking at the book of Judges. It's about eleven years since I did some detailed study on the book, but one of the things I remembered thinking all that time ago was how Judges was the Pulp Fiction of the Bible.

It's no doubt partly down to the fact that I first watched Pulp Fiction at around the same time, and partly down to the fact that there I was encountering various literary features of the book which I'd not really come across before. Anyway, as part of my preparation for Monday's session I thought I'd re-watch it, particular as I've not seen it since that initial viewing.

The comparison with Judges is certainly interesting. There's not been a film made about the book as a whole, at least not as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, despite a number of interesting, colourful, narratives only two characters have been represented in film at all. The first is Gideon who has only featured in two obscure films - Great Leaders of the Bible: Gideon (1965/6), and Gideon: The Liberator (1958). The other is, of course Samson. About a year ago I listed at least 49 films about the legendary strongman, and the recent appearance of Corina van Eijk's Samson and Delilah nudges that tally up to 50 (making his the second most filmed biblical story after Jesus).

The two things that first led me to connect Judges and Pulp Fiction were the violence in each story and the non-linear chronology. At first citing "violence" appears somewhat superficial - after all much of the Old Testament is horrifically violent. Yet Judges particularly seems to revel in the violence, and at times use it for humour, and the same could be said of Pulp Fiction. The most pertinent example from Judges is when Ehud's sword is swallowed up by Eglon's fat belly. The narrator seems to wallow in this detail and delight in spelling it out. It's worth pointing out that Ehud is effectively a hit man. The same could point could be made about Samson (although from the perspective of the Philistines his final act is perhaps a suicidal act of terrorism). Pulp Fiction was Quentin Tarantino's second film, and the violence was much commented on at the time. Indeed Tarantino's first film Reservoir Dogs was initially banned from video release due to it's violent imagery.

The second point is the non-linear narrative style that both writers adopt. At the time of the film's release this was one of the film's two major talking points (the other being the snappy dialogue). The film ends with the same scene it started with, albeit from a different perspective. Furthermore rather than the film consisting of one main story split into many different scenes, this is more of a collection of stories woven into a broader narrative. In between the opening and closing stories various other stories are told which, chronologically speaking, are from both before and after it. Whilst there is no one-reason why Tarantino adopted this approach, Roger Ebert noted how "if you told the story in chronological order that would get monotonous, this way the audience stays on its toes".¹ Certainly the tension that emerges in that final scene would have been greatly dissipated. Re-arranging the chronology of the individual parts of the story allows the film to draw different themes to the fore.

In the same way, Judges consists of a collection of individual stories sewn together to form a broader narrative. Indeed it's noticeable that whereas these various stories generally only concern a tribe or two at a time, the redactor uses them to comment on what was happening in the whole of Israel at that moment in time. Now whilst a minority of scholars would still claim that the historical data presented in Judges is accurate, the vast majority, including many conservative scholars, consider the chronology to have been highly stylised in order to give the overall story greater impact. Judges contains a prologue and epilogue that are often held to be later additions to the text, and these are generally set aside when looking at the core of the book's literary structure.

Both works have a kind of symmetry with their opening and closing stories both reflecting one another, but also being notably different. In Pulp Fiction we see the same scene, but from a different perspective. In Judges the differences are more significant that the similarities, but we effectively see Ehud paired off with Samson. As noted above, both are lone hit men whose actions are so strategic that they turn the course of the conflict decisively in Israel's favour. Whilst the similarities in Judges are weaker, this chiastic pairing is continued as we move towards the core of the book. Deborah and Jephthah are both social outcasts who Israel calls in during a desperate period to lead them to great victory. Both victories require the one of the heroes to break a part of their respective social codes. Whilst Jael's disregard for hospitality seems, to us, trivial compared with Jephthah breaking the laws against child sacrifice, the two taboos would have been far closer in the minds of those at the time. The final pairing is Gideon and Abimelech who are almost opposite in terms of their character and their faithfulness to God - and it's this contrast between faithfulness and unfaithfulness, and the impact of each, that is the book's major concern.

By contrast, Pulp Fiction uses it's non-linear chronology to shield the film's major theme from the viewer until the end. When the sequence of events is unjumbled it becomes apparent that both Jules and Vincent both witnessed the same "miracle", but responded to it in very different ways. Jules realises that he has to leave his life as a hit man behind him. Vincent carries on as before and is shot by Butch shortly afterwards. In fact "every one of the major sequences in Pulp Fiction ends with a character being saved".² Mia is saved from her drug overdose, Butch is saved from a life on the run. Pumpkin and Honeybunny are saved from the new style life of crime they were about to embark on, and Jules is saved from his life as a hitman.

This leads to a further similarity then: both works are deeply moral calling their protagonists to leave behind them horrifically sinful lives and be righteous. Samuel L Jackson, who plays Jules in the movie claims that "the story is totally about redemption. Everyone in the script who's life is spared is given another chance to do something with their lives".³ In this way it actually differs from Judges. Pulp Fiction's moral cycle works it's way up. It's greatest act of salvation occurs at the end of the movie. By contrast, Judges portrays a downward spiral where the morality of the characters descends with each new segment.

It's easy to be so disturbed by the degradation that is on display in Pulp Fiction that this theme is missed, and not dissimilarly its surprisingly how many of those reading Judges fail feel to feel the heaviness with which the author regards his countrymen's apostasy. Actually both find characters pulling their way to bloody salvation - both spiritually and in terms of their physical security, and the end to the threats under which they had previously been held.

I'm sure I had a few more observations, but they all escape me for the time being. I'll post up any that come back to me.

1 - Roger Ebert on "Siskel and Ebert - At the Movies: Pulp Faction"
2 - Roger Ebert on "Siskel and Ebert - At the Movies: Pulp Faction"
3 - Roger Ebert on "Siskel and Ebert - At the Movies: Pulp Faction"

Films about Samson

(Edit: My review for the 2018 Pureflix movie Samson is here).
Having discussed DeMille's Samson and Delilah (1949), and the version by the Bible Collection recently, I thought I would round up a list of all the films about Samson I could find info for. There were A LOT more than I had bargained for! My main three sources for this was the Internet Movie Database, Campbell and Pitts's "The Bible on Film", and Tyler Williams's online The Old Testament on Film list. Campbell and Pitts's book was published in 1980 and thus pre-dates the internet. It lists only 9 films, the first seven of which are from the silent era. The IMDB lists a good deal more, but many of these have nothing to do with the biblical Samson. Tyler's list includes 20 films which should all be pretty reliable. By combining these three lists there are 49 films which have some relation to the biblical Samson:

(1903) Samson et Dalila
(1908) Samson
(1908) Samson
(1908) Samson moderne
(1911) Samson and Delilah
(1914) Samson
(1914) Samson [and Delilah]
(1915) Samson
(1918) Sansone contro i Filistei
(1919) Samson
(1920) Sansone e i rettili umani
(1922) Samson and Delilah
(1922) Samson und Delila
(1927) Samson and Delilah
(1927) Samson at Calford
(1936) Samson
(1948) Samsun el kabir [The Mighty Samson]
(1949) Samson and Delilah
(1960) Maciste nella valle dei re [Son of Samson]
(1961) Sansone [Samson contre Hercule]
(1961) Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World
(1962) El Santo contras las mujeres vampiro, [Samson vs. the Vampire Women]
(1962) Furia di Ercole, La [Fury of Samson]
(1962) Maciste contro lo sceicco [Samson Against the Sheik]
(1963) Santo en el museo de cera [Samson in the Wax Museum]
(1963) Ercole sfida Sansone [Hercules, Samson & Ulysses]
(1963) Samson and the Slave Queen
(1963) Sansone contro i pirati [Samson Against the Pirates]
(1964) Samson
(1964) Ercole, Sansone, Maciste e Ursus gli invincibili [Samson and the Mighty Challenge]
(1964) Maciste alla corte dello zar [Samson vs. the Giant King]
(1964) Sansone e il tesoro degli Incas
(1964) Maciste nelle miniere di re Salomone [Samson in King Solomon's Mines]
(1966) I Grandi condottieri [Great Leaders of the Bible-Gideon and Samson]
(1967) Samson & Goliath
(1975) Stevie, Samson and Delilah
(1981) Samson et Dalila
(1981) Samson et Dalila
(1984) Samson and Delilah
(1985) Samson and Delilah
(1985) Samson & Delilah
(1987) Samson dan Delilah
(1988) Melech Hasalim [Magic Samson]
(1990) Samson & Goliath
(1991) Aaj Ka Samson
(1995) Samson le magnifique
(1996) Samson and Delilah
(1999) Samson & Delilah
(2002) Samson et Dalila
(2018) Samson

It is immediately obvious that whilst some of these films include the name Samson in their title, very little of the biblical character is retained except his super-strength. Titles such as Samson vs. the Giant King, Samson and the Seven Miracles of the World and my personal favourites Samson vs. the Vampire Women and the intriguingly titled Samson in the Wax Museum clearly have very little to do with the Book of Judges. There are at least 14 such films out of this 49. But that still leaves an incredible 35 films about Samson. Some of these maybe shorts or cartoons, and some of them may not have anything to do with the biblical Samson, such as Andrzej Wajda's 1961 film Samson which I removed from the list. Even so, with the obvious exception of Jesus, I can think of no other character from the bible who has appeared in more films than this.

Samson and Delilah (1949) Scene Guide

Having covered the Bible Collection of Samson and Delilah yesterday, I thought it would be good to look at the scenes for DeMille's famous 1949 version of the story. This was a highly influential film. After the Hays Production Code had killed off the biblical epic in the early 1930s, this film kick-started the epic film revival that was so prevalent in the 50s and early 60s.

[Introduction]
[Story of Moses recounted]
[Extra-biblical Episode]
Girl from Timnah (Judges 14:1-5)
Samson kills a lion (Judges 14:5-7)
A Wedding Riddle (Judges 14:10-18)
Samson Pays his Guests (Judges 14:19)
Death of Wife and Family (Judges 14:20; 15:6-7)
Burning of Fields (Judges 15:1-5)
[Extra-biblical Episode]
Samson's People Betray Him (Judges 15:9-11)
Jawbone of an Ass (Judges 15:14-17)
[Extra-biblical Episode]
Delilah agrees to trap Samson - (Judges 16:5) (Judges 16:5)
Samson falls for Delilah - (Judges 16:4) (Judges 16:4)
Samson tricks Delilah - (Judges 16:6-12) (Judges 16:6-12)
Delilah betrays Samson - (Judges 16:15-22) (Judges 16:15-22)
[Extra-biblical Episodes]
Death of Samson - (Judges 16:23-30) (Judges 16:23-30)
[Extra-biblical Episode] (Judges 16:31)

A Few Notes
As noted yesterday, DeMille omits chapter 13 of Judges - the angelic visitations announcing Samson's birth. There are a number of interesting points here. Firstly, in DeMille's next and final biblical epic, The Ten Commandments he is at pains to draw as many parallels as possible between his protagonist and Jesus, adding all sorts of flourished, and changing minor details (such as the manner of death of the Israelite infants in Exodus 1:22). Yet here he spurns the most obvious connection between Samson and Jesus. Secondly, DeMille replaces this opening with a more universal introduction, voiced over the image of the earth seen from afar. This demonstrates his intention to give the picture universal resonances. A similar technique is also applied that the start of The Ten Commandments

The other incident missing from this portrayal is that of the prostitute of Gaza, and Samson carrying the gates to Hebron. This puts Samson in a more positive light, he is naive and a little weak, rather than someone who is driven by lust.

Both the 1996 version and this one have Delilah choose to betray Samson before he has fallen in love with her, whereas the text shows that she is only approached after her and Samson has fallen in love. This has two implications. Firstly, it makes Delilah appear as a calculating, manipulative, sexual predator (women in bible epics tend to fall into one of two categories pious or whore). DeMille's casting of Lammarr enhances this. Lamarr carried a certain notoriety after she appeared nude in Extase (1932). Whilst the film was banned in the US, it gave her a particularly type of fame, and using an actress with such connotations brought something to the role that other actresses, such as Angela Lansbury, could not have. Whilst the text does portray Delilah as manipulative, there is nothing to indicate her initial love wasn't genuine. Secondly re-ordering these scenes in this fashion takes away the parallels between Delilah and the girl from Timnah. In both cases Samson unwisely falls for a Philistine girl, who shows her loyalties are with her people rather than her lover. However, this then leads to Samson being able to rout the Philistines. Interestingly Demille demolishes this point of comparison, but establishes another - than Semador and Delilah are sisters. Over the years, art has perhaps been a little unfair to Delilah.

One of the interesting additions to the text is the role of the boy Saul, who we find out at the end of the film will be Israel's first King. It's probably the most positive portrayal of Saul on film (in contrast to say that of Orson Welles), but it also creates a link between Samson's weaknesses and that of the man who followed him. Additionally it portrays Samson as a prophet as well as leader. Given that Saul was a Benjaminite, and Samson a Danite there is cause to question whether Samson would even have led Saul's people. At the same time it is not inconceivable that he would have, and is a nice touch.

One other contrast with the biblical text is that here Samson burns the Philistine fields because his wife has been killed, whereas in Judges, she, and her father, are killed because Samson burnt the fields after his wife was given to someone else.

There are a few comments on this film, and portrayals of Samson through the ages at the Samson and Delilah Home Page

Samson and Delilah (1996) Scene Guide

I recently watched Time Life’s Samson and Delilah from the Bible Collection. Curiously it’s the only film in the series to feature two names (that is unless one counts Creation and Flood. Both films are also the only ones that I’ve seen so far to utilise a narrator). Anyway, I’ll review it in a couple of days, but for now here’s the scene guide with a few comments.

Part 1
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Birth of Samson Predicted - (Judges 13:1-5)
Birth of Samson - (Judges 13:24)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Samson Kills a lion - (Judges 14:5-6)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Jawbone of an Ass - (Judges 15:9-17)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Honey from the Lion - (Judges 14:8-9)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
The Girl from Timnah - (Judges 14:1-19)
Burning if the fields & death of Samson’s Wife & Family - (Judges 15:3-6)

Part 2
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Prostitute of Gaza - (Judges 16:1-3)
Delilah agrees to trap Samson - (Judges 16:5)
Samson falls for Delilah - (Judges 16:4)
Samson tricks Delilah - (Judges 16:6-12)
Delilah betrays Samson - (Judges 16:15-22)
[Extra-biblical episodes]
Death of Samson - (Judges 16:23-30)
Burial of Samson - (Judges 16:31)

Notes
Given that this film shares its name with the famous DeMille film, it is worth asking whther this film is a remake of that film, or simply another, separate, re-telling which just happens to share that title. The evidence is not entirely straightforward. On the one hand, this version of the story contains almost all of the biblical material pertaining to Samson, whereas DeMillee's film omits the events leading up to his birth. It also presents some episodes out of order. That said there are a number of other similarities:

* Both have an Israelite girl who loves Samson but who is too pious, faithful and dull for Samson to love back.
* Both Israelite girls have a younger brother who idolises Samson and is to some extent his side kick
* Both have Samson kill the lion in front of Delilah
* Both show that lion-killing out of context
* The actresses playing Delilah both bring with them a certain reputation which enhances her role
* Neither film shows Samson using foxes to burn the Philistine fields

So it would appear that this isn't really a remake - given the sparse amount of material available on Samson, the storylines are very different, as is the role of Delilah. But the infuence of DeMille's film on this one is undeniable

As noted above, almost all of the biblical material is included in this film. The most notable exception is Manoah’s reaction to his wife’s visitation. The omission of this episode actually emphasises the similarities between the birth of Samson and the birth of Jesus, which is further highlighted by references to Samson as "Saviour of Israel".

There are however, a number of small differences. One notable example is the burning of the Philistine fields following Samson’s aborted wedding. In the text Samson, bizarrely, catches 300 foxes ties them in pairs fastening a torch to each pair and releasing them in the fields. The film ignores this complicated detail, (which would have been difficult to get past the animal cruelty advisors anyway!), and simply has Samson burn the fields himself. This seems a more likely act of passionate vengeance, although the strangeness of the episode itself is perhaps the strongest evidence of its historicity. As a side note I found myself hearing Dan Brown’s voice in my head as I watched this scene, "X wondered how many Christians knew that the Firefox web browser got its name from this story"...

Gideon: The Liberator

As far as I am aware, there have only ever been two films made about the story of Gideon - Great Leaders of the Bible: Gideon (1965 - info. at Amazon), and Gideon: The Liberator (1958), part of the Living Bible Collection which I have just started working my way through.

It's strange that Gideon has fared so poorly in the cinema. Samson, the other major hero from the book of Judges, has featured in more films than any other biblical character, except for Jesus. Whilst it could be argued that Samson's story is given the most space in Judges, the word count of these stories is hardly in proportion to the number of film portrayals. Arguments from the structure of Judges are no more conclusive. Judges is bookended by a prologue (1:1-3:6) and an epilogue (17:1-21:25). In between the exploits of the various judges are recounted. Whilst it could be argued that, in coming last, Samson's story forms the climax of this main section, most commentators observe a chiastic structure in Judges, with the story of Gideon being of central importance. Whilst both stories feature well in Sunday schools, I suspect the reason that Samson is the more popular when it comes to dramatising the story is simply because of the love angle and the absence of any female characters in Gideon's story.

Gideon: The Liberator, however, is something of a halfway house between the two, being essentially a dramatised Sunday School story. Produced by Concordia / Family Films productions, it's mere 14 minutes of screen time suggests the story is being disseminated for those with shorter attention spans. Add to this that the battle, and subsequent rout of the Midianites is all off screen, and it's clear where the film is aiming.

Up until the battle scenes the story shows remarkable faithfulness to the text. A prophet delivers an oracle, and shortly afterwards an angel finds Gideon in a winepress, and commissions him, staying around only long enough to light Gideon's sacrifice. Gideon then destroys the altar to Baal, but is protected by his father's speech. Gideon lays out his fleeces, gathers and selects his army before creeping in to the Midianite camp to hear a soldiers dream and it's interpretation. The pre-battle sequence concludes with the army lighting their torches, hiding them under their lamps, and smashing them on the top of the hill as they run toward the Midianite camp.

The film then cuts to a very brief report of Gideon's army moping up the fleeing Midianites, with no mentions of the dispute with the Ephraimites, and the vengance taken against Succoth and Peniel. The final scene is Gideon, who has suddenly gone grey (the sign of being distinguished and wise) with his arm around his son (presumably Abimelech) refusing the kingship that is offered to him. No mention is made of the collection he requests, or the idol he makes as a result. Given that many, particularly those who consider Judges' structure to be chiastic, consider this incident to epitomise the whole book and be it's pivotal point, this omission is disappointing - if not entirely surprising.

It's a long time bug bear of mine, but I do dislike it when people make films about the three dimensional humans of the bible that God uses inspite of their weaknesses, and reduces them to one dimensional robotically obedient heroes - removing their humanity in an attempt to portray them more reverently. Whilst the story doesn't completely ignore the fact that Gideon was basically killing his enemies, it does seem to consider that a bit of a tangent from what this film sees as a story about how to follow God. When the biblical narrative diverges from that agenda, rather than that shaping "the agenda" it is truncated, sweeping such nuances and reality under the carpet. But as I said above this is just a Sunday School type of film that's 14 minutes long.

Gideon: The Liberator was written by Betty Luerssen and directed by Edward Dew. Dew directed several episodes from the series, and had starred in almost 100 films in the forties and fifties, including brief appearances in The Adventures of Robin Hood and Citizen Kane.

Matt