The Bible (2013) - Part 1*

I've been writing up reviews for individual episodes The Bible on a sort of ad hoc basis. Essentially, when I revisit one because it touches on something I am researching, I try to write it up then, having only reviewed the series as a whole when it first came out. So now at last I have returned to Episode 1*(by this I mean the first episode if you are looking at the series as ten episodes long, but in some places it aired as five longer episodes, so I guess it's the first half of episode one if that's you).

The episode, and therefore the whole series, starts with the words of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech and snippets from various other famous speeches where other famous orators have referenced God and/or the Bible. Many Bible film makers have attempted to give their production gravitas at the very beginning by use of similarish devices - think Cecil B. DeMille's opening lecture at the start of The Ten Commandments (1956) or Orson Welles' authoritative sounding narration at the start of King of Kings (1961). This is a contemporary twist, even as it is rooted in history, it is more recent history, and rather than riffing on ancient artefacts or texts, it adopts an approach more in touch with our age, one awash with soundbites.

The creation and fall part of the series is perhaps most notable for its portrayal of Satan, which many noted at the time looks remarkably like then then non-conservative president, Barack Obama. This time around, it's even more striking. The makers denied it, of course, but it's hard to escape the feeling that even if this wasn't deliberate, it perhaps betrayed their deeper feelings. Other interesting casting includes the choice of a Scottish actor (David Rintoul) whose Scottish accent lends the role with a sense of connection with the great outdoors and dramatic weather (at the very least, constant rain).

The Noah segment is startlingly brief, and is ended by a scene which starts with a God shot of Rintoul before zooming out. It's initially rather well done, but then the special effects kick in and it speeds up to reveal the whole globe covered in water. Not entirely convincing special effects and over the top sound effects, are something of a hall mark of this series. We get both here and the passage of time has hardly improved them. The vision of the entire globe covered in water must have played nicely to the programme's conservative viewer base. I can't help but wonder (admittently rather flippantly) whether they ever considered zooming out to show the water covering an earth that was flat...

The next segment features Abram and Sarai, though here they are called simply Abraham and Sarah from the start. We start with a Abraham praying on a mountain top (using the obligatory helicopter footage) and hearing God call him out. We then cut to Sarah still at home on her knees, also prayin. Only he seems to hear God, however. Is this meant to reflect a reality - Abraham free to go for mountain walks whilst Sarah is stuck at home with the chores, or to legitimise a similar model today? I'm not sure quite how I'd like to see this played out, but I find the filmmakers' vision here disturbing. I suppose there's a chance that's the point, but that's not the impression I'm left with.

Whilst Sarah is happy to believe her husband, with just a smile to convey her acceptance, Lot's wife is considerably more dubious from the start. I really dislike it when filmmakers stack the deck like this, implying Lot's wife was never really on board with God's plans. It not only makes it so much easier to overlooks the ethical problems of her fate in the text, but it also lays heavy interpretation on it. Lot's (unnamed) wife's fate isn't portrayed as just a momentary lapse, it's the result of her general attitude. Needless to say, she is cast in this negative light in almost every scene.

Once Lot and his wife split from Abraham and his men, it's Sarah's turn to become the negative foil. Now it is she who mopes grumpily around and here she actively denies she will have a child. She tries to prevent Abraham from rescuing Lot and his clan (in a rare adaptation of that incident, which does cast Abraham in a different light, one that is, usually exorcised from most portrayals of him). When three visitors appear and suggest she will still have a child, she gulps rather than laughs. The three visitors are interesting as the two angels are non-white and the third is clearly meant to be Jesus. I quite want to go back and look at how the camera and the mise en shot indicates this without ever making it explicit.

Which brings us to the most ill-fitting part of this episode, if not the entire series, namely the scene in Sodom and Gomorrah. It's hard to be even more over-the-top than a text that has a man attempting to buy off a crowd of would-be angel rapists by offering them his daughters instead, but somehow The Bible manages it. The daughters are mere children here and the whole exchange passage (which obviously reflects very badly on Lot, the supposed hero) is dropped. What we get instead is a long and gratuitous scene of armour-clad angels beating up/killing a huge number of male Sodomites, in fairly graphic ways. As I'm sure I have mentioned before somewhere (but can't remember where), the scene lasts far longer than the entire creation sequence, or than the story of Noah. Later Isaac, Jacob and Esau's stories will be, by and large, omitted, yet this imagined scene of violent divine retribution just goes on and on. It's reveals a strange set of priorities. Moreover, do the angels not realise all these people are about to get the burning sulphur treatment? It's hard to think of a moment that typifies the series more, and exposes its claims for authenticity more starkly, than this.

Ultimately, here Lot's wife's crime could be interpreted as her not trusting Lot, as opposed to not trusting God. For some reason Lot has responsibility for both daughters, rather than both parents taking one each, and so Mrs Lot manages to get a little ahead. She only turns looks back, therefore,  because the other three fall behind. But of course, she has already been deemed guilty by the earlier scenes, so the filmmakers apparently consider that they have done enough to convince the audience that this is somehow justified.

The last incident in this episode is, of course, Abraham's aborted sacrifice of Isaac, meaning the adult life of Isaac and pretty much everything to do with his two sons Esau and Jacob, the father of Israel, is omitted. It's a reminder that for all it's claims to historical authenticity this is very much a Christian, rather than a Jewish take on the text.

The Bible: In the Beginning (1966)

The Bible (John Huston, 1966) has come to be known, somewhat unfairly, as the film that killed the biblical epic. It's a charge that somehow persists despite three major objections. Firstly, it hardly makes sense to blame a single film for destroying a genre, and even if did, that accusation should surely be pointed at The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) which blew £25 million for very little return, rather than at this. Secondly because rather than being an example of the worst of the genre it is surely one of it's best. Indeed, in concluding his masterful survey of the films of the Hebrew Bible, Jon Solomon cites it as one of the three "most representative and iconographical Old Testament depictions of the twentieth century" (175).

More significantly, of course is the fact that rumours of the genre's demise turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Whilst Jesus Christ, Superstar, released just seven short years later, is not exactly an epic, it would have seemed hard to argue in 1973, that the Hollywood Bible film was enjoying anything other than reasonable health.

Huston himself was one of the greatest figures in Hollywood. He burst onto the scene in 1941 with the brilliant PI flick The Maltese Falcon before heading to the front line of World War II and creating a series of documentaries for the army. Key Largo and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (both 1948) reunited him with Bogart, as did The African Queen (1951) and the spoof, Beat the Devil (1953) and his catalogue of famous films extended all the way beyond Prizzi's Honor in 1985. In between times he found time to continue the Hollywood dynasty founded by his father Walter, with three of his five children (Anjelica, Tony and Danny) going on to have prominent roles in Hollywood, as well as his grandson Jack, who had the lead role in the 2016 version of Ben-Hur.

Houston acted too., Most famously in Polanski's Chinatown (1974), but also here as an amiable Noah. Both Alec Guinness and Charlie Chaplin had initially been considered for the role, but Huston brings a cheerful sense of purpose to the impending destruction of humankind.  All this however is only after a masterful creation sequence and the sight of Michael Parks and Ulla Bergryd cavorting in the altogether behind a series of strategically-placed plants.

For the opening sequences, Huston narrates the opening chapter of Genesis over a series of stunning collection of images of the natural world: molten lava bubbles and flows as the land is separated from the sea; a gigantic sun rises, and moves across the skies, as the greater light is brought forth; and swarms of fish burst through the waters of the deep, as the creatures of the seas are created.

What is impressive about the creation sequence, in addition to the jaw dropping beauty of the images, is the way they so skilfully plot a course between a seven-day type literalist interpretation on the one hand, and more metaphorical readings on the other. Just like the written text, the viewer looks at the raw material and is able to apply their own interpretation. Furthermore, even after numerous nature documentaries and a number of cheap rip-offs the sequence still creates a sense of awe, even if Huston's use of the archaic King James Version and one of the more conventional parts of the soundtrack date things a little.

The soundtrack excels elsewhere however. Following the creation of Adam, and then Eve the fall and the scenes where Cain (Richard Harris) kills his brother are accompanied by more atonal music. This combined with the bizarre poses Harris strikes, and the low and then high camera angles make this whole sequence strange and disorientating. Whilst the narration is rigidly literal to the text, the film uses the more cinematic elements of image and sound to suggest this more mythical reading.

The one exception to this is Huston's Noah segment, which goes for more of a light-hearted family comedy feel. Gone is the slavish dependence (or at least the appearance of it) on the biblical text. Instead get other characters get to speak, such as Noah's wife who doesn't quite understand what is happening and Noah's disbelieving compatriots insulting him and calling him "stupid".Noah himself gets to use words and phrases not found in the text of Genesis such as when he suggests that the tigers are "only great cats" who can survive on milk from the other animals. Interspersed with this we get Huston mugging for the camera, visual jokes about the tortoises being last on to the arc and the slapstick spectacle of Noah sticking his foot in a bucket of pitch and sliding down the top deck. It's not that these homely touches are necessarily that bad, just that they feel somewhat out of place with the broody, otherworldly tone struck by the rest of the film. Huston rarely appeared in his own pictures, and perhaps this misstep gives a suggestion as to why. With that on top of having to manage an on-set zoo, it's hardly surprising he was repeatedly heard to quip "I don't know how God managed, I'm having a terrible time" (Huston 320).

In some ways, however, the film's episodic and inconsistent nature does mark it as a film of transition. Following the poor box office performance by both The Bible and The Greatest Story Ever Told, big studios seemed more reluctant to outlay immense budgets for biblical epics. Instead the 70s were featured the broadcast of numerous made-for-TV series marking the "migration of biblical narratives into the medium of television" (Meyer 232).

The rest of the film returns to this more pre-historic feel, aided by some fantastic high contrast lighting with gives so much of the film this eerie aura. Stephen Boyd's Nimrod, complete with a painted on mono-brow, shots his arrow to the sky and quickly finds there is no longer anyone who can understand his orders and then we swiftly move on to the sight of George C. Scott's Abraham leaving Ur.

Again the film does well presenting the main stories here (birth of Ishmael, visitation of the angels, the fall of Sodom and the aborted sacrifice of Isaac) in biblically faithful fashion whilst also questioning the legitimacy of that presentation. Particularly strange is the sight of Abraham's three ethereal visitors interchangeably using Peter O'Toole's head and an orgy scene dreamed up for Sodom that is more creepy than it is titillating.

The way these scenes pan out leaves Abraham's story, which comprises almost the film's entire second act, as some sort of hope for humanity, even as it hints of the rocky, even traumatic road ahead. The jump from a scene of he and Isaac walking stealthily through the chillingly charred remains of Sodom, to preparing for Abraham to kill his child, provokes anger rather than reverence. Abraham is troubled, but also haunted by the temperamental God who commands him. His willingness to sacrifice his son is more an act of fear of what might happen if he refuses than one of faithful service.

It's a fitting end to what is - in contrast to the majority of epics that went before it - "a personal film on a gigantic scale (Forshey 146). In some ways that is far more reflective of Genesis itself. Whilst chapter one paints of a broad scale, from there on in it's the story of God with a string of individuals - Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Huston's film not only gets this, but its highly literal narration, in tandem with its dark and primitive feel, underlines the mythological nature of the texts giving much of the film a strange sense of the dawn of time, and the primitive nature of the cultures involved. Whilst the change of tone in the Noah section is a little misplaced, it's hard to deny to boldness of Huston's artistic vision.
================
- Forshey, Gerald E. (1992) American Religious and Biblical Spectaculars Westport CT: Praeger.
- Huston, John (1981) An Open Book. London: Macmillian.
- Meyer, Stephen C. (2015) Epic Sound: Music in Postwar Hollywood Biblical Films, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
- Solomon, Jon. (2001) The Ancient World in the Cinema, (Revised and expanded edition). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sodom und Gomorrha (1923)

The 1920s saw two men battling for supremacy of the biblical epic, Cecil B. DeMille and the Hungarian Mihaly Kertesz. DeMille went on to make The Sign of the Cross (1934), Samson and Delilah (1949) and The Ten Commandments (1956) to cement his name as the one that will forever be associated with the genre. Yet whilst Kertesz, who went on to change his name to Michael Curtiz, may ultimately have lost the battle, he's generally acknowledged to have won the war. Once in Hollywood, Curtiz made a string of the greatest films ever made including The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Mildred Pierce (1946) and, of course, the immortal Casablanca (1942). He got to more than keep his hand in with the historical films as well, most notably his work with Errol Flynn, indeed David Thomson claims that "the Errol Flynn picture was really more Curtiz's invention than the actor's" (Thomson 196).

Of course the move to Hollywood and to Warner's had a major impact on his career - it seems unlikely that his staying with them for around 25 years cannot be solely down to gratitude for them providing him an escape route from the growing Nazi threat. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if what really propelled him to greatness was someone sitting him down and telling him to stop making films set several time periods in parallel.

In addition to his early films Boccacio (1919) and Cherchez la femme (1921), three of the four biblical films in which Curtiz was involved, use this differing time periods motif (here, Noah's Ark (1929) and Korda's 1922 Samson und Delila in which the exact extent of Curtiz's involvement is unclear), only Die Sklavenkönigin (The Moon of Israel, 1924) was solely set in the biblical era. What's strange about these three films is that even though the biblical content is only around 50% of the total running time, all three films are named after the biblical characters, perhaps because the lives of the modern characters reflect those of their predecessors.

Whilst this approach had been popular ever since D.W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916), Sodom und Gomorrha is probably the most formal structure.¹ The historic scenes take place within a dream of one of the modern character who first dreams of events in her own time, then of those in Old Testament Sodom, then of events in Syria, before then returning to the dreamlines in Sodom and the modern day,before final awakening for the film's conclusion. Thus the film has a chiastic structure as shown below:

Modern day reality
     →Modern day dream pt.1
          →Biblical dream pt.1
               →Syrian dream (all)
          →Biblical dream pt2.
     →Modern day dream pt.2
Modern day reality


Bizarrely, though, at the heart of this structure is neither the modern story nor the biblical story the film is named after, but the Syrian story. Interestingly this chiastic structure is also emphasised by the film's frequent use of an iris shot. Often these shots are static iris shots, which hold for their duration, rather than an "iris in" or an "iris out". The use of the iris is also a nod to the dream element of the film. In the "real" part of the story the iris acts as a predictor/reminder of the up coming dream sequence. In the dream section of the film it is one of the techniques the filmmakers use to both clarify and remind that this sequence is a dream not a (past) reality.

Of course the film's concentric circles can also extend out one layer further. The darkest area around the iris above is, of course, our real world, now in a fourth time period, but it is this that is true reality, not the film's base layer of reality. And there seems to be an intention, on the surface at least, that this is the kind of film that wants to speak to the viewer at home, too. Throughout the film we have been encouraged to identify with the film's anti-heroine, through a series of visual techniques such as point of view shots and the fact that ultimately we enter her dreams, and when she reconsiders her behaviour in the light of what she has experiences, the film seems to want its audience to do likewise. I didn't really mean to spend as long on that as I have done...and I didn't even get to mention Christopher Nolan's Inception, which works on a very similar chiastic dream premise, though I suspect Nolan hasn't seen Sodom and Gomorrha.

Sodom's other key identification is of the angel with Jesus. Most obviously, before the people of Sodom and Gomorrah try to kill the angel they tie him up, on the top of a hill, in a cruciform position, and ask him "Wenn Du ein Engel bist - Warum schützt Du Dich nicht?" (If you are an angel - why not save yourself?). There are a handful of other minor references applied both to the angel and to the "youth" from the Syrian section.

The film's best visual moment is, as perhaps you might hope, Lot's wife (Lia) turning to a pillar of salt (see above). The biblical section of the film plays fairly loose with its source material. This is partly to align with the modern day story, so Lia is more wanton than ever the Bible suggests, in order to align her with the modern story's anti-heroine. The three leading female roles are all played by (Lucy Doraine). Similarly there is only one angel rather than two so that he can correspond more easily to the modern story's priest (similarly both roles played by Victor Varconi). Lastly Lot and Lia do not have daughters as they do in the biblical story, which, again, enables the film to align Lot's wife with the single woman of the modern story.

The biblical account of Mrs Lot's demise always seems a little harsh. It's one of the places where the judgement of God seems particularly arbitrary and the story seems to be ped(a)lling extra hard to create an explanation. However, whilst here Lia doesn't exactly deserve death, she certainly is no less culpable than her fellow townspeople. In any case, she turns, there's a flash and she is turned instantly to a pillar of salt. The smoke masks the jump-cut, of course, but it's very deftly done and whilst Curtiz's greatest films don't really have a call for this kind of special effect, it demonstrates his ability to masterful execute a powerful visual sequence. It's made all the more effective by the delay between when the intertitle announces what is to happen and the event itself. Fully 3 minutes passes between the announcement of Lia's demise and it actually happening.

As with many of Curtiz's films the sets are impressive - particularly one expressionist shot up a hill to a set of gallows late in the film which is so typical of the best of German films of the time. More typically though, it's the size and scale of the sets, that impresses as well as the scenes of their ultimate destruction. The scenes of crowds of extras fleeing their impending doom hint at what Curtiz would achieve in Robin Hood and in so many of his other swashbuckling films.

Of course, such scenes were no longer novel by this point in the 1920s, but one or two moments, the water in Sodom plopping as sulphur begins to rain down, or the smoke billowing through an Astarte's temple, really stand out. The image quality when viewing the film on YouTube make it difficult to see the detail on the sets. One can only imagine how impressive it would be to see a proper print of the film, in good condition on the big screen.

That said, these scenes, and the film in general, do rather drag and if the film's aim was to get an audience of flappers to reform their behaviour, it seems hard to believe many of them found the harsh, angry priest very appealing. According to Shepherd, the film had spent quite some time in development (217). Given that Curtiz's sense of rhythm, pacing and plot are so perfect in Casablanca, which was still being written as it was being shot, perhaps the problem is that Curtiz had not yet learnt to trust his instincts. Sodom und Gomorrha is notable for the consistency of its structure, but we should be grateful that he would go on to create far better works.
==============
1 - According to Shepherd there are various cuts of this film including "the DVD produced by the Filmarchiv Austria (2008) [which] does not contain the 'Syrian episode'" and a 1995 reconstruction (218). Whichever version Shepherd is referring to in his general discussion, it does not seem to be the same version as the one available on YouTube which I also acquired on DVD. For one thing Shepherd calls Lot's wife "Sarah" (219)
==============
- Shepherd, David J. (2013), The Bible on Silent Film: Spectacle, Story and Scripture in the Early Cinema, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Thomson, David (2002) The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, LONDON (Little Brown), Fourth Edition.

La Sacra Bibbia/After Six Days (1920)

With so many silent films lost to the ages, we should be grateful even for those where the remains are only part of what was originally projected. Nevertheless, it's hard not to be a little aggrieved that the print of La Sacra Bibbia (also known as just La Bibbia) that remains is a butchered version edited down for a re-issue. Indeed Sacra Bibbia was reissued at least twice, once in 1929 (as After Six Days) at the advent of the sound era, and once as late a 1946, for which a trailer was put together boasting of a $3 million and promising a cast of 10,000. The film's publicists also made much of the film being shot at the "exact locations" though the artefacts that are shown seem more like modern re-creations than the famous landmarks themselves.

The version that remains is the 1929 version, edited down from the original and replacing the original (reference free) title cards with an earnest, but dull narration. According to Campbell and Pitts La Bibbia was released as a series of one reelers (1981: 12) and a copy of the original Joseph reel found it's way into the Joye collection and survives in the BFI's archive. The fragment (which I reviewed here) indicates some of what was lost. In addition to the intertitles, the re-issue also cropped the image, disastrously on more than a few occasions.

What remains, however, is still a testament to what was the strength of the Italian silent epic. It was in Italy that the historical epic was born (Gli ultimi giorni di Pompei, 1908) and for all the attention given to Griffith's Birth of a Nation it was Cabiria that took the epic film to a whole new level. Indeed Griffith is reputed to have admitted Cabiria inspired him to make Intolerance what it was. La Bibbia retains much of the grandeur and spectacle of those films and in its own right contains numerous shots for which it deserves to be remembered.

The film was directed by Armando Vay and Dr Piero Antonio Gariazzo. These days Gariazzo is better remembered for his commentary than his filmmaking. Bertilini only mentions him for his 1919 book Il Teatro Muto and his expression of a sentiment more widely connected with Alfred Hitchcock, "Whether they are skilled or not, film actors and actresses are like puppets" (Bertilini 2013: 259).

Unsurprisingly the acting is not particularly memorable, but the compositions and imagery are what really stand out. The earliest scenes give a sense of creation and must have inspired Huston and Dino De Laurentiis' sort-of remake in 1966. Eve appears for the first time as smoke rises from Adam's sleeping body. The two frolic in the garden before embracing and taking a bit out of the forbidden fruit almost simultaneously. Moments later a furtive Cain, dominating the foreground and shooting furious looks directly at the camera forlornly pokes his sacrifice knowing it will fail whilst in the rear of the shot, almost off camera, his brother contentedly carries on.

The brief scenes of the Ark and are unspectacular, but nevertheless the curve of the unfinished boat's hull and the struts that support it form a pleasing backdrop to shots of Noah and his family. Once the rains come in earnest, however, the images are far more disturbing. First Doré's "The Deluge" is evoked as people desperately climb on a rock hoping for salvation; then a wider shot of dead bodies piled up just above the rising waters as the rains continue to lash down; then finally a double exposure brings the camera closer to some of these, now ghostly, corpses floating away whilst the camera ploughs on in the opposite direction.

However it's the Tower of Babel that lives longest in the memory. Here's it's depicted as a towering ziggurat, so colossal that it's top disappears into the clouds off the top of even an ultra-wide shot. It both reflects and emboldens Bruegel's famous painting (1563) and Doré's engraving (1865) amongst others, soaring above the seemingly minute people milling about below. Another highlight of these opening scenes is the spectacular destruction of Sodom, as the disastrous angelic visit to Lot ends in brimstone raining down on the city in a whirl of sparks and smoke.

In contrast to these more eye-catching, spectacular scenes, the Joseph episode neatly emphasises Mrs Potiphar's obsession with him, notably the voyeuristic pleasure she finds secretly watching him. In a darkened foreground she watches him silently through a grill, briefly facing the camera as she bites her bottom lip in ecstasy. The theme of the audience watching someone watching someone else has been replayed numerous times since, another reminder of Hitchcock. When Pharaoh remembers his dreams a matte shot shows cows running above his head, before animated stalks of wheat appear. The section's use of low and high angles to reinforce the power dynamics of the courtroom scene.

Moses' appearance on the big screen here was possibly the last time before DeMille made his indelible mark two or three years later. The differences are striking. For example rather than carrying around a mighty staff, Moses' rod is more reminiscent of a magic wand. Suddenly it feels like DeMille might have been compensating for something. Moses also has horns in the style of Michelangelo's statue (1513-1515) - just one of a number of ways in which the film's portrayal resembles the famous sculpture, something DeMille made much of when promoting his 1956 remake with Charlton Heston. That said, the crossing of the Red Sea - here portrayed using a rather clumsy matte shot - is not a patch on DeMille's first attempt just a few years later.

Indeed after such a striking first half the second part of the film is less impressive. Once Moses has installed Joshua as his successor and wandered up the mountain to meet his maker, the remaining footage skips to the story of Solomon, perhaps suggesting that a scenario or two are missing here. Solomon shows his wisdom, threatens to cut a baby in half before being wowed by the Queen of Sheba in a scene full of over-the-top headdresses. Eventually he ends up a pagan orgy with her in scenes strongly reminiscent of the later Solomon and Sheba (1959).

By then, the film, or this cut of it at least, has rather lost its way and like the Hebrew Bible itself, the narrative thread rather trails off. Nevertheless, there is so much to be appreciated in the rest of the film it is a shame that it has had so little attention,  neither amongst silent cinema fans, nor amongst academics. Even if what we have is only a pale reflection of what once was, La Sacra Bibbia deserves to be better remembered.

==========================
- Bertilini, Giogio (ed.) Silent Italian Cinema, Bloomington: Indiana University Press
- Campbell, Richard C. and Pitts, Michael R. (1981) The Bible on Film: A Checklist, 1897–1980, Metuchen, NJ, and London: Scarecrow Press.
- Gariazzo, Piero Antonio (1919) Il Teatro Muto Turin: Lattes, cited in Pitassio, Francesco (2013) Famous Actors, Famous |Actresses: Notes on Acting Style in Italian Silent Films" cited in Bertilini, Giogio (ed.) Silent Italian Cinema, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p.259

Lot in Sodom (1933)

As I mentioned on Sunday, last week in Leicester was the British Silent Film Festival which this year had a specific focus on the transition from silents to sound. One of the films screened, as part of the Edgar Allan Poe evening, was The Fall of the House of Usher (1928) directed by James Sibley Watson and Melville Webber. As it is, for some time I've been meaning to write up Watson and Webber's later work Lot in Sodom (1933), so it was useful to see their other film for comparison.

Relatively little material remains about the life and work of James Sibley Watson and Melville Webber, indeed Webber hasn't even been granted a Wikipedia page. Both men's film careers were short. Aside from these two films together, they also made Tomatoes Another Day (1930) and collaborated on three minor industrial films, but apart they each only made one other film of note, Webber's Rhythm in Light (1935) and Watson's Highlights and Shadows (1938).

This is enough, however, to count as a significant contribution to the avant garde / early experimental movement of the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, the film "ran for more than two months in New York, and continued to play in theatres throughout the 1930s and 1940s, becoming in the process probably the most commercially successful avant-garde film of the era" (Horak, 2008: 41). On top of this it's clear to see - with the benefit of hindsight of course - that, for Lot at least they were pioneers in queer cinema in an age when homosexuality was still illegal. Lot's influence on later queer cinema such as Derek Jarman's The Garden (1990), is plain to see.

As with Usher it's difficult to follow what's going in without prior knowledge of the story, not least because five years after the introduction of talking pictures, Lot in Sodom is still essentially a silent film, available then with atonal music by Louis Siegel and available today with the additional option of an excellent modern soundtrack by Hands of Ruin.

Both films show a marked similarity of style such as expressionistic sets, superimposed shots, strange camera angles, floating text, kaleidoscopic images and various other experimental techniques. Cuts are often abrubt, and often the connection between the two shots is not immediately obvious. In places the editing is reminiscent of Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera (1929), much of the sets feel like Murnau's Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (1920). One popular technique is superimposing the same symbolic image onto a shot several times, such as the hammer with which Roderick seals his sister's tomb in Usher arrays of naked torsos here.

Watson and Webber's film is a loving tribute to two things- an admiration for the human, and predominantly male, form; and a treatise on the formal potential of cinema. The first is hardly revolutionary. the human body has held a fascination for artists since almost as long as art itself. Watson and Webber seemingly took the approach best embodied by Cecil B. DeMille, that of basing a film on a moralistic/biblical story in order to reduce objections to the amount of flesh on display. However, whilst Lot in Sodom ultimately ends with the fiery destruction of it's inhabitants, clearly the filmmakers are rooting for the losing team.

That impression is underpinned by numerous factors. It's telling, for example that the film is almost halfway through before the angel of the Lord arrives to set the plot in motion. Then there is the contrast between Lot and the Sodomoites, both in terms of looks and of how they are shot. The sodomites are all youthful, dynamic and attractive. In contrast Lot looks like a cross between an Assyrian Bas Relief and an anti-Semitic stereotype. He is comparatively old and unattractive, heavily clothed in contrast to his townspeople and the camera spends far less time lingering on him than it does on his neighbours.

Furthermore, as Alina Dunbar points out "in contrast to the Angels and the Sodomites, who are nearly always featured in either medium or full-shots, Lot is frequently cast on either the right or the left side of the frame, in such as way as to suggest that he does not have the power to fill the screen by himself." (Dunbar, 2014).

On top of this, there is also the way that Lot himself seems somewhat conflicted. At one point the film cuts from a shot of Lot in the dark to an intertitle that reads “How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart?”, yet, as Grossman observes Lot "never moves his mouth, in defiance of silent film conventions...the film “speaks” through an intertitle while the character remains totally silent, splitting in a surprising way the cinematic soul" (Grossman, 2014).

As events come to a head, Lot raises his hands to God in desperation, only for the terrifying answer "withhold not even thy daughter"to come back not as an intertitle, but superimposed over the image. An array of Latin phrases follow in similar fashion, as if floating on the screen their meaning unclear: Non Tacta (untouched), Mulier (woman), Templum Est (the temple).

Given the most famous element of the story from Genesis, it is no surprise to find that this sense of internal conflict also extends to Lot's wife. Eventually the angel (singular) steps in save the day, rays of light shine from his chest and Lot and his wife and daughter escape, but of course Lot's wife turns to look back and is turned into a pillar of salt. Harries makes the case at length that her retrospection here is the result of her "evident curiosity about, and perhaps even sympathy for, this city; it portrays her backward look as punishment for this sympathy" (Harries, 2007: 45). As she undergoes her metamorphosis images including tormented people and the city's temple are superimposed over her as if to emphasise the point that it is her sympathy for the city that is causing her to change, or perhaps causing her to be punished. As an image it's provocative, challenging and one that only unveils the fullness of its meaning on multiple viewings, so typical of the film itself.

========
Dunbar, Alina (2014) "Lot in Sodom: Reading Film Against the Grain", CurnBlog May 16, 2014 - http://curnblog.com/2014/05/16/lot-sodom-reading-film-grain/

Grossman, Andrew (2014) "Tomatoes Another Day: The Improbable Ideological Subversion of James Sibley Watson and Melville Webber", Bright Lights Film Journal November 28, 2014 - http://brightlightsfilm.com/tomatoes-another-day-improbable-ideological-subversion-james-sibley-watson-melville-webber/

Harries, Martin (2007) Forgetting Lot's Wife: On Destructive Spectatorship. New York: Fordham University Press.  - The relevant section (p.45-54), including numerous stills, is available via Google Books

Horak, Jan-Christopher (2008) "A neglected genre: James Sibley Watson’s avant-garde industrial films" in Film History, Volume 20, pp. 35–48, John Libbey Publishing

See also:
Fischer, Lucy (1987) "The Films of James Sibley Watson, Jr., and Melville Webber: A Reconsideration" in Millennium Film Journal, Fall/Winter 1987/1988, Issue 19, p.40 - this is available here, but I've not been able to gain access.

Moore, Marianne (1933) "Lot in Sodom" in Close Up, September 10, 1933, p.318 - archived here. Moore worked with Watson and later wrote about the making of the film.

Sodom and Gomorrah (1962)

Stephen Lang, in his "The Bible on the Big Screen", subtitles Robert Aldrich's Sodom of Gomorrah "Not the Sin We Expected". It's undoubtedly a fair point: the story of Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah lasts for only three chapters of Genesis (13, 14 and 19) - not much material for a 150 minute film - yet nearly all of the biblical story, including the moment for which the cities were judged, was somehow omitted.

In fairness, attempted angel-rape was probably a little strong for the production code era, which forbade even the mention of homosexuality. That said, what the script writers were forced to leave out, the costuming department more than compensated for with a series of male tunics so short that they stretch little but the audience's credulity.

The film starts at some point after the events of Genesis 13, indeed the story of Lot and Abraham's separation is told by a narrator a couple of minutes into the film. Lot is leading a large group of people through the desert and already he is facing dissent from within his own camp. The scene - which echoes the complaints Moses faced when the Israelites were in the desert - is the first of many nods to other stories from the Hebrew Bible and their cinematic interpretations. There are numerous debates about slavery, angry prophets, housebound leopards, enemies being drowned by waves, girls bathing in milk, fights won using slings and stones and chains falling off godly men.

It's often been noted how Biblical epics have often sought to satisfy the audience's thirst for titillation and violence whilst simultaneously soothing any qualms they have about the material by including moments of piety and some form of "moral" conclusion. The wealth of biblical cross referencing perhaps also reflects the film's wealth of mildly erotic material. Given this tendency within epic films in general, it's hardly surprising that one about Sodom of Gomorrah takes it to extremes. Barely a scene goes by without a dance from a group of scantily clad women or some beefy man flexing his muscles.

In fact the finished film betrays the likelihood that it was conceived primarily because of it's potential for titillating material. Lot is very much a minor figure in the Bible, and certainly no kind of hero. We first hear of him as he and his men are falling out with his uncle (Abraham), then he gets himself captured and needs Abraham to come and rescue him, before settling into a Godless city and only just managing to escape before it suffers and almighty smiting. There are various stories in Genesis which reflect badly on Abraham, but in his dealings with Lot he always comes out smelling of roses. But of course, the filmmakers must have reasoned, in the Bible Abraham is left out of the destruction of Sodom episode, so if we want to make a film about that, then we're going to have to make Lot the hero.

To do this the story of Abraham rescuing Lot is missed out, the majority of the material inserted stresses Lot's morality and heroism and the story of Abraham bargaining with God over Sodom's fate is retold with Lot as the hero. The inserted material features a number of overlapping sub-plots: the queen of Sodom's brother is plotting to overthrow her using another tribe; the queen is seeking to protect her cities using Lot and the Hebrews; the queen's slave falls in love with Lot and becomes his wife; the queen's brother seduces Lot's daughters; and supposed anti-slavery of the Hebrews clashes with the Sodomites use and abuse of slaves to build their kingdom. In all the majority of these scenes Lot is portrayed as an anti-slavery, just, merciful, brave and principled leader, in stark contrast to the conniving, immoral Sodomites and their lesbian queen.

The major exception comes towards the end of the film. The Hebrews defeat the enemy tribe, but their land has been destroyed so they turn to selling salt, make a huge profit and move into the city. But as they do so they begin to lose their principles. Lot is no exception to this compromise with Sodom, but comes to his senses after killing the queen's brother in a duel, being duly arrested and then visited and released by the two angels from Genesis 18 and 19.

As a film Sodom of Gomorrah (also known as Last Days of Sodom and Gomorrah leaves a good deal to be desired. It's overly campy, badly written and often hamily acted. But Mikos Rozsa's score is fine and the scenery (Aït Ben Haddou 20 miles outside Ouarzazete, Morocco) is often impressive. And there are at least two impressive moments. The scene where the Hebrews fight the Halamites is very well put together by a young Sergio Leone, demonstrating the potential that would blossom in his spaghetti westerns. The other is the film's opening shot (overlaid by the titles) where the camera pans over a mass of intermingled, semi-clad, restless bodies. It's strangely disorientating, particularly given the well known fate of the Sodomites, and captures the 'otherness' of the story which is about to unfold far better than the rest of the movie ever does.

Year One (2009)

With his beard and his stout figure Jack Black has often seemed a littel prehistoric compared to his liposuctionned, bodywaxed, Hollywood cohorts. So it was perhaps only a matter of time until someone offered him a role playing a caveman. Black plays the role of Zed alongside Michael Cerra's Oh in Year One, the latest film from producer Judd Apatow (Superbad, Knocked Up, Anchorman) and writer / director Harold Ramis (Analyze This, Groundhog Day).

Yes, this is gross-out comedy version of ancient history set largely in the Old Testament. There are characters eating poo, strange things happening at orgies and jokes about sex aplenty. The Carry On team never did the Bible, but if they had have done, it would probably look something like this. (And those films do appear to have been somewhat influential on Year One). Certainly Ramis’ loose approach to history has more in common with those films and Mel Brookes’ History of the World Part 1 than the relatively meticulous Life of Brian.

Yet in other ways, the film has much in common with Life of Brian - the benchmark for any historical/religious comedy. Both films feature a leading man who may or may not be the chosen one (in fact 'Messiah' simply means anointed or chosen one). Both films use the Bible, but in neither is it the primary focus of the story, and both films are keen to put across the idea that religious figures are unnecessary because we can make our own destiny. Yet whereas Life of Brian managed to make that point fairly effectively whilst still being funny, Year One puts the comedy on hold and brings in the crescendoing orchestra.

That said, as a comedy, Year One does manage to be reasonably amusing, and manages to find a good deal of original material from a subject that has been done many times before. Perhaps part of that is due to its structure. After Zed and Oh are thrown out of their tribe for eating the forbidden fruit, the first half of the film turns into a historical road movie, with the pair meeting a number of Jesus’ ancestors  (Cain and Abel, Adam and then Abraham and Isaac). But as they wander they discover their tribe has become enslaved and taken to Sodom. The second half of the movie is set in Sodom itself. It’s the quest to free the women they love, Maya and Eema, in the hope that such heroics will make the girls love them back.

Zed and Oh reject Adam’s family, with their murderous brother and their bizarre sleeping arrangements, and the tribe of the circumcision-obsessed Abraham, as well as the God that both families follow, but when they reach Sodom things become a bit more inconsistent. The idea of there being gods who require human sacrifice is rightly rejected, and at times any idea of god also seems to be disregarded. Yet eventually Zed prays and ultimately what he prays for does come to pass, in a way that at least suggests God’s approval of Zed’s new message. Some would call it providential timing, others pure coincidence, but at the very least, Zed’s “make your own destiny” message seems to rely on that coincidence in order to gain wider acceptance.

Jesus only mentioned Sodom a couple of times, but interestingly, he also suggests that had miracles occurred there, the city would have seen the errors of its ways. “If the miracles that were performed in you (Capernaum) had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.” (Matthew’s Gospel, 11:23). It’s perhaps not the message Black and co. were seeking to send, but it’s interesting that they can’t quite get away from the fact that there’s more to life to sex and fart jokes.

This article was originally published at rejesus.co.uk

Scene Guide - The Real Old Testament

Having reviewed Paul and Curtis Hannum's The Real Old Testament last week, I'd like now to give some scene analysis on the film. This is a fairly easy task as the individual episodes are given Bible references, and tie in fairly well with the chapter breaks on the DVD. Citing Bible references makes the film more authoritative, particularly for those who are not that familiar with Genesis, whilst also defusing some of the potential objections that its critics might raise. The main story headings (for each chunk of the story) are just cited as whole chapters, but each element within that chunk is accompanied by more specific references. To capture this I've made the main headings bold. All verses are as cited by the intertitles

[Extra-Biblical Episode - Introduction]
Gen 1-3 - The Garden of Eden
The Forbidden Tree - (Gen 2:15)
Temptation at the Tree - (Gen 3)
The Fall From Grace - (Gen 3:9)
Gen 4 - Cain and Abel
Cain and Abel's Offering to God - (Gen 4:3)
Cain kills Abel - (Gen 4:8)
God Confronts Cain - (Gen 4:9)
Gen 12, 15, 16 - Abram and Sarai
God Comes to Abram - (Gen 12)
Sarai is Barren - (Gen 16)
Sarai Deals Harshly with Hagar - (Gen 16:6)
God Find Hagar in the Wilderness - (Gen 16:7)
Gen 19 - Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot Visited by Two Angels - (Gen 19:4)
Lot and His Family Flee - (Gen 19:15)
Sin of Lot's Daughters - (Gen 19:30)
Gen 17, 20-22 - Abraham and Sarah
Abraham and Sarah meet King Abimelech - (Gen 20)
Sarah Laughs at God's Pledge - (Gen 18:9)
God Tests Abraham - (Gen 22)
Gen 29-30 - Jacob and Rachel
Jacob Meets Rachel - (Gen 29:9)
Laban and Leah deceive Jacob - (Gen 29:23)
Jacob and the Handmaidens - (Gen 30:3)
Rachel Trades Jacob's Favours for some Mandrake - (Gen 30:14)
[Extra-Biblical Episode - The Re-Union Show]

Notes
There are a number of similarities between this film and John Huston's The Bible: In the Beginning (in addition to covering the same subject matter). Firstly, the film's title suggests it covers a greater portion of the Bible than it actually does: Huston's film stops at Genesis 22 (after the aborted sacrifice of Isaac). The Real Old Testament goes eight chapters further.

Secondly, from a textual point of view, both films offer a fairly literal reproduction, yet in both cases it is precisely because these films let the stories speak for themselves that they bring such uncomfortable challenges to the original stories. Finally both films star their directors in key roles: Huston plays Noah and Paul Hannum plays Snake whilst Curtis Hannum plays God. There are, of course, numerous other comparisons.

This is the only film I can recall which shows the incident with Lot's daughters. It's absence in other Genesis films perhaps owes something to it's strangeness, and even though it's played for laughs here, it's uncomfortable viewing. Another episode usually glossed over is that of Rachel swapping sex with Jacob for Mandrake. Having recently watched Pan's Labyrinth (my review), where the legends surrounding the plant are explored, these aspects seemed particularly pertinent to me this time around. For more on this see the post on Rachel and Genesis 30 at Ralph the Sacred River.

Whilst covering most of the first thirty chapters of Genesis there are a few notable omissions. In particular Noah and the Tower of Babel, as well as the stories of Isaac and Esau. I imagine that former pair were omitted for reasons of budget as much as anything else. (Interestingly the Noah scene is the only one in which Huston sought to bring out the humour). I'm curious as to why the story of Esau was left out. Perhaps the Hannums couldn't see the humour in it when they were creating the scenarios. Or perhaps it was filmed, but didn't reach the same standard as the rest of the film. One or two scenes are moved out of the order they occur in the bible, although their arrangement there is not actually chronological in any case.

As with MTV's The Real World, the film ends with a "Re-Union Show" where all the characters get together again. Bring characters separated by time together produces a few new laughs, such as when one character calls Eve a "babe" before realising that they're supposed to be related, or Snake extolling the virtues of agents. It is however, the weakest part of the film. Interestingly though, it does raise questions about the treatment of women in the book of Genesis.

The Real Old Testament

It's probably because religion is often taken so seriously that those with a sense of the comical find it such a hard subject to resist. Things have changed significantly in this area over the past 30 years. Back in 1979, Monty Python's Life of Brian faced a storm of protest, and was banned in many areas. These days things are far more lax. A few quick searches on YouTube swiftly reveal what an easy target religion has become.

Sadly, quantity does not equate quality. Just as Life of Brian was swiftly followed up by the dreadful Wholly Moses, and the fairly weak bible scenes from The History of the World Part 1, so there is little in the current glut of religious comedy that will still be genuinely funny once we have got over that one time taboo.

Thankfully, Curtis and Paul Hannum's The Real Old Testament is a notable exception. Shot on an ultra-low budget, with improvised dialogue it covers the opening 30 or so chapters of the book of Genesis in the style of MTV's The Real World. In addition to playing 'God' and 'Snake' the brothers also edited, produced and directed the film themselves.

However, possibly the Hannums' biggest strength is their ability to draw together a group of actors who were sufficiently able to milk the material for all it was worth. Probably the most established star of the film was Sam Lloyd (Ted from Scrubs) who plays Abraham. That said, keen Scrubs fans will also recognise the names of real life husband and wife team Tim Hobert and Jill Tracy who star here as Jacob and Rachel. It's testimony to the rest of the cast, however, that they more than match the performances of these three. Particularly impressive are Kate Connor as Sarai/Sarah and Laura Meshelle as one of Lot's daughters. But it's Curtis Hannum's own performance as a petulant and fickle God which is probably the most memorable.

It's also the performance most likely to cause offence. This is not a film for those unable to laugh at their faith. If you were offended by Life of Brian then stay away. This is not a film which shows God a great deal of respect.

That said, the movie will have as many fans within the church, as it will outside it. The Real Old Testament is certainly irreverent, but its offence is tempered by its measured use of scripture. There's very little in the final film which is not from the book of Genesis, and whilst it is portrayed fairly scathingly, at least half of its irreverent tone comes from the original decision to shoot those stories in that particular style.

The best films about the Bible are those that shed new light on overly familiar texts. The Hannums' film is certainly successful in this regard. By defamiliarising the various stories in Genesis it allows them to be seen in a new way. By filming the Old Testament is such a penetrating modern style, the strangeness of much of what went on in these characters lives becomes unavoidable. It cuts through centuries of religious gloss to the very core of the stories.

But the biggest strength of the film is that it achieves its primary goal – to be funny. A comedy film can be moving, challenging or pioneering, but if it fails to amuse then it's ultimately a failure. The Real Old Testament is packed with great lines, and subtle performances. It's eminently quotable, and is one of those rare films that gets funnier with multiple viewings. Whether it's calling Sodom and Gomorrah "one of those love it or hate it places", Cain extolling the pleasant virtues of Nod, or Abraham reacting to God's idea about circumcision, the film rarely misses the mark.

The original The Real World played for several series, in different cities, and it would be great if The Real Old Testament went beyond Genesis and gave other Old Testament books similar treatment. Sadly it's been over four years since it showed at the Slamdance festival, so, unfortunately, that seems unlikely. It's a shame, because as po-faced and fundamentalist Christianity are on the rise, we need more films that show us the biblical absurdities which often go unnoticed.

Abraham - Scene Guide

Yesterday I posted a review for Abraham, having written a few initial thoughts on Monday. Anyone interested in a second opinion might want to read Peter Chattaway's review originally written for Christian Info. News, back in July 1996. Peter's got a better grasp of the history of that period than me, and so he's a little more critical of the historical errors he sees.

Anyway, here is the scene guide for the film

Part 1
Extra-biblical episodes (loosely Genesis 11:26-32)
Call of Abram - (Gen 12:1-3)
Abram and Sarai leave Haran - (Gen 12:4)
Extra-biblical episodes
Altar built at Bethel - (Gen 12:7)
Clash with the Amorites - (Gen 12:6)
Famine in the land - (Gen 12:10)
Sarai given to Pharaoh - (Gen 12:10-16)
Extra-biblical episode
Pharaoh falls ill and expels Abram - (Gen 12:17-20)
Abram allied with Mamre the Amorite- (Gen 14:13b)
Abram and Lot separate - (Gen 13:5-18)
Lot captured - (Gen 14:11-12)

Part 2
Abram recounts Tower of Babel - (Gen 11:1-9)
Abram rescues Lot - (Gen 14:13-16)
Abram and the king of Sodom - (Gen 14:17)
God's covenant with Abraham - (Gen 15:1-20)
Abram and Melchizedek - (Gen 14:18-20)
Hagar and Sarai - (Gen 16:1-16)
Covanent of Circumcision - (Gen 17:1-27)
The Three Visitors - (Gen 18:1-15)
Abraham bargains for Sodom - (Gen 18:16-33)
Sodom sins and is destroyed - (Gen 19:1-28)
Birth of Isaac - (Gen 21:1-7)
Hagar and Ishmael sent away - (Gen 21:8-14)
Extra-biblical episode
Hagar and Ishmael in the desert - (Gen 21:15-21)
God tests Abraham - (Gen 22:1-19)

A Few Notes
It's noticeable that the film takes 50% of its runtime on just two and a half chapters (and even then only 2 verses from the half). By contrast the second half of the film covers seven and a half chapters worth of narrative.

The only major incident not included in this film is that from Gen 20 where Abraham again tries to pass of Sarai as his sister. This may well be because some scholars consider this to be an alternative version of the same story. Such an interpretation certainly seems to make Abram's repeated disowning of his wife more understandable. That said, the differences are also significant - differences of location, the man in question, the way Abimelech hears from God rather than getting a disease first, and the way Abraham prays for Abimelech's wife and slave girls at the story's end. This last incident is one of my favourites in the whole story. Sarah is still without her own son, at this point, which must have pained both her and Abraham. Yet Abraham finds the strength to lay these feelings aside and pray for Abimelech's wife and slave girls that they would receive the miracle that has eluded Abraham and Sarah all these years. I wonder how many times Abraham must have prayed this prayer for his own wife?

By contrast to it's exclusion of the Abimelech story, the film does include each of the occasions when God speaks to Abraham, even though there is some repetition here also.

Finally, its interesting how the portrays the crimes of Sodom. these are first depicted early on after Abraham rescues Lot, when some sort of homosexuality is awkwardly displayed. This is repeated once the two angels visit the city. However, the crime itself, still seems to be the more likely scriptural interpretation of "attempted gang rape". In some ways, then, the film wants to have it's cake and eat it, neither offending the homosexual community by showing homosexual acts as the sin that condemns Sodom, whilst failing to remove the suggestion that homosexual acts were a part of the problem. Reading this on a deeper level, this resultant linking of homosexuality to gang rape is potentially far more offensive than either of those on its own. It's also interesting how the film shows Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salf (right). This is shown but receives very little comment. There's some subtle suggestion that what happens to Sodom is linked to volcanic activity, but this is never explicitly shown or stated.