Absalon (Absalom, 1912)

Henri Andréani was just an actor when Pathé's "promoted [him] from within its ranks" to the role of co-director under Ferdinand Zecca.¹ At the time the market for 'respectable' material such as biblical films was growing rapidly. Gaumont, Vitagraph and a number of lesser known (mainly Italian) studios had all released films on biblical subjects such that despite Pathé's early Passion Plays, and a handful of New Testament films they were losing ground. Pathé's strategy had been to create/acquire various new 'Art' brands/subsididiaries such as SCAGL (Société cinématographique des auteurs et gens de lettres), Film d'Art and Filme d'Art Italiana ².

Having learned from Zecca (who had previously co-directed the 1902-05 Passion Play La Vie et passion de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ, and directed its 1907 remake), Andréani's first solo effort was David et Goliath (1910) before he went on to make films about Moses, Cain and St. Stephen, but he returned to the story of David in 1911 with David et Saül and with La Mort de Saül the following year. 

Given Andréani's penchant for the Bible's more visually striking acts of violence - Andréani is the only director to have given us Jael driving a tent peg through Sisera's skull, and also gives us Goliath's head on a spike, Cain caving in his brother's head and one of the few versions of Jephthah's daughter - it was only a matter of time before his continued adaptation of the David narratives tackled Absalom. For those unfamiliar with the story, Absalom is one of David's sons who started a rebellion against his father after his half-brother raped his sister. Sadly, he proves to be more of a politician than a warrior and when the battle with his father's forces starts to go against him, he flees into the woods and gets caught in a tree by his hair and is stabbed by David's general Joab.

The film largely follows this narrative (there's more in the Bible, but, like Andréani I've not gone into all the details. You can read the story for yourself in 2 Sam 13.1–19.8). The main difference occurs at the start. Despite Andréani's apparent relish for grizzly deaths, he omits Amnon's rape of Tamar. Instead Absalom's motivation derives from David choosing Solomon to succeed him even though Absalom is the eldest. This is a bit of conflation. By the time David appoints Solomon, Absalom is long since dead and it is David's next eldest son Adonijah who misses out to Solomon and starts a rebellion. (The scene is covered in Solomon and Sheba (1959) featuring George Sanders as Adonijah).

In any case, this is the scene with Absalon (also known as A Prince of Israel) begins. The composition strongly echoes that of the battle between David and Goliath in Andréani's earlier film with the low camera, looming figures and the depth of the shot, but the scenery is very different. Solomon is still  child. Absalom cuts a pretty hefty figure. Of all the characters in the Bible none are described as thoroughly as Absalom. Not only are we told that "in all Israel there was no one to be praised so much for his beauty as Absalom"  and that he was without blemish (2 Sam 14:25), but also that he only cut his hair once a year and that it weighed "two hundred shekels" (2 Sam 14:26) – about 2kg according to the Good News Bible. Perhaps the film was meant to be set shortly after that annual trip to the barbers, but it's fair to say this is not how I pictured him.

However, the casting is interesting for another reason. I think Absalom might be played by Louis Ravet who starred as Goliath in Andréani's earlier film. Meaning he Ravet had pretty much cornered the market in playing enemies of King David. Ravet's is credited in the intertitles to David and Goliath as being from the Comédie Française - the world's oldest active theatre company. Ravet was more or less simultaneously involved in various productions of Racine's "Athalie" at the Comédie Française while appearing in a string of historical films for Pathé, particularly working with Andréani ³. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his build, he also took the lead in Capellani, Zecca and Andréani's Samson (1908).

In film-making terms Andréani had moved on significantly since the start of his David series. Here there's a little more insight into the motivations of the characters, though not to the extent we find in La Mort du Saul. More significantly we see a far greater cast. There are a number of crowd scenes as Absalom puts himself about gaining popularity while undermining David and fomenting rebellion. perhaps the biggest spectacle here is the battle scene (pictured above). It would be interesting to compare Andréani's crowds with one of its contemporaries Enrico Guazzoni's Quo Vadis? (1912/3) for Cines. Certainly they are more sizeable than those in D.W. Griffith's Judith of Bethulia a year or two later. Andréani also uses a cut to make the start of the battle larger. The result is what looks like a rather odd panning shot. It starts on one set of advancing soldiers, only to pan away to empty space, presumably to enable an invisible cut while the extras move to the other side of the imminent conflict and charge in the other way. Either way the next shot (above) - of soldiers in hand to hand combat looks very impressive, and there's a depth of field on display here which really makes the battle look huge.

Indeed Andréani's use of the 3D space here is a significant advance on David and Goliath. See for example the shot below of two men sent by David's spy Hushai, peeling off from Absalom's marching forces and cross (the River Jordan?) to warn their King. It very effectively tells the story with the river clearing marking the distance between Absalom's forces and David's spies. Their prominence in the shot reinforcing the fact that these are the good guys. (Though Absalom is portrayed relatively moderately in the film).

As with many films revolving around an iconic moment ⁴, a significant part of how it is judged depends on how it handles that moment. Here's it's a little disappointing. This is in part because the first time I remember hearing this story it was Absalom's hair (specifically) that got caught in the tree, rather than just his head as the text says (2 Sam 18:9). I was probably a teenager and the preacher in question was from a free/ independent/ conservative evangelical church and used the story as a warning against vanity. Doubtless the idea that Absalom's fate was an apt punishment for his vanity persists in some circles.

However, this is to take things quite a way beyond the text. Firstly it only says "head" and there seems to be no connection in the writer's mind between the two. Perhaps the further you get from the story the more appealing the connections seems. As Daniel Lavery points out in this quirky reworking of the story, "if Absalom’s heavy hair were caught in the limbs of the terebinth tree, he would have only to cut it to free himself."⁵ Moreover, the text has plenty of bad things to say about Absalom, but it doesn't criticise him for being vain, nor does anyone view the accident which led to his execution as being an act of God. 

In any case, here Absalom's hair is not long enough to get accidentally caught in a passing tree while fleeing a battle, and, as you can see from the .gif below, it doesn't really show him as getting his head caught either. There's an attempt at an impressive stunt. Absalom/Ravet grabs at the tree as his mule goes under it. It must have been fairly difficult, but it never looks anything other than a man hanging from a tree with his arms. It's difficult to know if audiences would have been impressed by this at the time. I suspect not because while movie stunt work, like the rest of cinema, was in its infancy, it was well enough established in the theatre that it's unlikely anyone was as impressed as they would have been by some of Méliès' camera trickery. After he's cut down there's some sort of plait that's left swinging as the soldiers ride on. Was this deliberately included as part of his hair (in which case how did it get caught?) or some part of his apparel? Or was it just part of the stunt that was left, a little carelessly on display afterwards?

Joab stabs the dangling Absalom ("exactly as stabby as we could wish" in Fritzi Kramer's words) and his men hack him down and carry him to David.⁶ It works dramatically, but it does mean that one of the few Black characters in the Bible – an unnamed Cushite – is excluded. Having been marginalised in the text by not having their name mentioned, they are cut out of this film adaptation entirely. The final shot shows David morning for his son rather than celebrating the victory, while Joab looks on disdainfully.

It's interesting how the final shot in many ways mirror the first. David showering affection on one of his son's in the middle of the screen, unaware of the extent to which it is irritating one of those close to him who is shown on the left of the screen demonstrating visible signs of their annoyance. While Joab continues to serve David the incident with Absalom seems to have been the start of a rift between him and David, which led to Joab eventually being replaced as David's commander and David advising his son and appointed successor Solomon to have Joab killed, advice Solomon takes. The film nicely captures that cycle.

Absalom appears in a handful of films about David, particularly The Story of David (1976), the Richard Gere vehicle King David (1985) and the Bible Collection's David (1997), but they tend to be ruined by terrible wigs failures an a failure to empathise with the character or give him any sense of depth. In a way, this portrayal of Absalom avoids those pitfalls, mainly because even though this is in some ways a continuation of Andréani's David series, the film-makers are happy to make Absalom centre stage. Admittedly, the acting is in that stagey style (which people assume typifies acting in the silent era, even though it doesn't), but nevertheless the film is fairly effective at telling the story dramatically and cinematically and the battle scenes and its use of depth of field is an interesting development in the directors style.

Readers might also be interested to see Fritzi Kramer's review of Absalom at Movies Silently.

==================
1 - Shepherd, David J., The Bible on Silent Film: Spectacle, Story and Scripture in the Early Cinema (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), p.125.
2- Abel, Richard, The Cine Goes to Town: French Cinema 1896-1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp.38-43

3 - Anon. "Louis Ravet" Wikipedia, France. Available online: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ravet

4 - I know "iconic" is overused, but I struggle to find a suitable alternative. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

5 - Lavery, Daniel, "Absalom's Death and Death", The Chatner. 11 March 2020. Available online: https://www.thechatner.com/p/absaloms-defeat-and-death 

6 - Kramer, Fritzi, Absalom (1912) A Silent Film Review", Movies Silently, 8 September 2019. Available online: https://moviessilently.com/2019/09/08/absalom-1912-a-silent-film-review/

Silent Henri Andréani Films Online

I've decided to start posting more general Bible film news on here in addition to the reviews. I already post some stuff like this on Twitter, but it's increasingly hard to find stuff there again and it's nice to keep this site ticking over. 

Over the years I've posted quite a bit about the series of biblical shorts Henri Andréani directed for Pathé in the real golden era for biblical films, 1908-13. However, while many of his films based on the Hebrew Bible have survived, most of them remain locked away in archives. 

The good news is, though, that three of these films are now available either to watch online or download from Harpodeon for just $5. The three films are David et Goliath (1911) one of its three sequels, Absalom (1912) and Le sacrifice d'Abraham also from 1912. 

I have seen the first of these films before in the BFI archive's Joye collection and interestingly, this is a different print from the version I saw where the colour was far more impressive. In fact, as there's also a plain black and white version of this film on YouTube and there are also some frames from another version available to view online in the Eastman Museum Collection. then there are at least four extant prints of this film, three of which are in (differently) stencilled colour. I wrote about this film for my David chapter in "The Bible in Motion" as well as a long blog post about it here (which includes a transcript/translation of the German intertitles). 

As for the other two, however, I've not yet seen them, but I plan to review them shortly. In the meantime you might be interested to read Fritzi Kramer's review of Absalom at Movies Silently. 

Harpodeon have a number of other biblical silents available as well, including the 1907 Ben-Hur, Judith of Bethulia (1914) and Nazimova's Salomé (1922).

Silent Bible Film Mystery - #04 Untangling the Pathé Passion Plays

I've been promising for a while to write a post disentangling the various Pathé Passion Plays made during the turn of the twentieth century. The films are most widely known due to the 2003 Kino-Lorber/Image Entertainment joint DVD release with From the Manger to the Cross, although obviously they are also available on YouTube. However, both the DVD and that YouTube link claim that the version of the film they have is from the period 1902-1905. Having a range of years is, in itself, a bit odd, and what's more subsequent research suggests that their dating is incorrect.

Pathé's first Jesus film was released in 1899. Gaumont produced their first Jesus film at around the same time. Over the years they evolved it and remade it such that the final version wasn't completed until 1914. By which time it's style will have been looking very mannered, though that didn't prevent subsequent re-releases. This development took two different forms. One the one hand, there was the creation of new scenes to complement the original ones. This, for example, is why a time range of 1902-05 is often ascribed to the film. The first scenes were shot in 1902 and released but new material was being filmed and gradually made available as things progressed.

On the other hand, there was also the refilming of material that had already been filmed before. Indeed, within that 15 year period there were four distinct series, one in 1899, one in 1902-05, one in 1907 with the final incarnation in 1914. For each of these material was re-shot, often improved in certain ways, such as the creation of more impressive sets - something that became a key part of the Pathé brand - larger numbers of actors, improvements in camera quality, and variations in location. At the same time there is a remarkable consistency in terms of composition and ideas, with various scenes being recreated in almost exactly the same fashion from version to version.

Three further obstacles hamper the progress of those trying to get to the bottom of this situation. Firstly, there is range of different titles given to the different editions. The films have come to be known as The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ in English or La vie et passion de notre Seigneur Jésus Christ in French, but the shorter La vie et passion de Jésus Christ or even La vie de Jésus or The Passion Play have also been used.

Secondly, there is the fact that Pathé gave distributors and exhibitors the opportunity to pick and choose which scenes they wanted to display. So a theatre owner could choose just to show the nativity scenes, or run a shorter version of the film and not have to pay for the whole thing. This is a totally different mindset to how cinema is distributed today. Given that so many copies of the film have been lost over the years it's hard to work out what is happening with various different fragments and run times of similar, but slightly different looking material.

Lastly there are also various red-herrings. The film's use of colour is much discussed, but it's unclear when this first began (though it was certainly fairly early) or at what stage the colour was added to the various remaining fragments of material we have today. The film's artistic choices in terms of a central, fixed, camera became such a typical part of Pathé's house style, and Pathe's success in this era was so substantial, that it came to be seen a something primitive that later filmmakers evolved on from, rather than a creative choice. But look at a variety of 1890s and 1900s films and you'll soon see that many other approached to camera positioning and use were in evidence. And then there's the use of intertitles, which can date from far later and can themselves contain incorrect information; the release of intermediary versions; and the quality of the print which can make a newer film look far older to the uninitiated than a pristine print of an old version. A further complication is that the film continued to be chopped about, repackaged, recycled and re-released under new titles well into the sound era. I have a VHS at home which calls the film Son of Man (1915) but which comes from a release after it was "hand-colored by Nuns" in 1928.

Anyway, there's been a great deal of work into these films over the last few years, not least by Alain Boillat and Valentine Robert, Dwight Friesen, and Jo-Ann Brant, all of whom have essays in David Shepherd's book "The Silents of Jesus". Between them they break down and de-lineate the four films, which I'll summarise here with references to the relevant page in Shepherd's book:

1899
Little is known of this film. It contained 16 tableaux (p.27) and the odd scene may be included in these films I discussed back in 2006 (though I stand by very little that I wrote in that post and I think most of those are from later versions). The director is not known, but it's possible that it was Ferdinand Zecca who first joined Pathé at this time.

1902-05
This is the version that the Image/Kino DVD claims to be, but it appears they are mistaken. We can forgive them - it they had not painstakingly restored this film and made it widely available, the subsequent research which has cleared things up a little might not have happened. There was a VHS release in 1996 by Hollywood’s Attic (31). In any case, it was directed by Ferdinad Zecca and his assistant / co-creator Lucien Nonguet. As the time range suggests this was the most evolutionary stage. The 16 original tableaux were reshot - some longer some shorter - and new titles were added (p.27). Then over the following three years additional tableau were created, taking the eventual total to 32 (p.27).

1907
This is the version that is available on the Image/Kino DVD, or at least that is one of them because two very, very slightly different versions exist, one in black and white and one in colour, though the differences extend to marginal variations in composition, not just the use of colour (p.79f). The number of tableaux in this version are hard to number with precision. Boillat and Robert state 37; Friesen cites 39 (p.79), but only lists 35. In many ways Zecca seems to be responding to his friend and rival Alice Guy's 1906 Jesus film (p.87-92) as evidenced by the increased percentage of outdoor footage at a time Pathé was increasingly building its reputation on its sets (as evidenced by the now prominent Pathe logo on several of them). The film has been discussed in many places at length, so I'll say no more on this for now.

1913-4
In contrast to the previous two or three stages, the fourth and final film was directed by Maurice-André Maître. It's this version which was re-released as Son of Man in 1915 and again after 1928 and for several years was available on VHS from Nostalgia Family Video. As you might expect everything here is bigger and better. Abel claims that there were 75 tableaux, but Boillat and Robert, writing more recently reduces this figure to 43 (p.27). Brant notes how his use of "deep staging and misè en scene "intensify the pathos", "dramatize the logic", provide a "more complicated visual experience" and "liberate his story" (158). Again he uses more outside scenes, bigger crowds and scenery, but he uses this to increase his depth of field.


I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion over the various films - I must admit it's still not entirely clear to me, and still I watch  the DVD I discussed back in 2006 and long to know the story of how what seems to be a jumble of fragments came to be assembled in this way. In writing this post I also sat down and watched the two later films together in parallel, pausing one or the other to keep the episodes in sync. That in itself was enough of an interesting exercise to make this worthwhile.


1 - Abel, Richard (1994) The Cine Goes to Town: French Cinema 1896-1914, Berkeley: University of California Press. p.320

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belshazzar's Feast (1905)

Le festin de Balthazar (Belshazzar's Feast - 1905) is one of three short films made by Pathé that were also packaged as the one-reeler Martyrs chrétiens (also 1905), and of the three it is undoubtedly the most interesting and technically accomplished. Whilst the other two films, Les martyrs and Daniel dans la fosse aux lions, are essentially just a more exciting way in which to present lion-tamer footage, Balthazar is marked by an impressive matte shot that allows for both the film's villain and the mysterious hand to appear in the same shot.

It makes for a rather awkward composition of course. The giant hand and the words it writes dominate the left of the screen; Belshazzar's party are squished into the right. The shortness of the footage relies on using a large chez lounge to highlight which character Belshazzar is, not to mention that for this to really pass as a feast for 1000 (Dan 5:1 NRSV) Belshazzar has to be surrounded by courtesans, dancers and drinking buddies for the scene to work. And then of course there is the arrival of the Median army who burst into that same shot through the large doors in the middle.

What's fascinating is that the order in which the cinematic innovations appear to have taken place. In 1905 films were almost entirely composed of long, static mid-shots, as if the cameraman were watching a play. Montage, inter-cutting and close ups were really still a thing of the future. Yet, remarkably, matte shots (including this one which actually utilises a close up) were in use, even though most modern viewers would assume they would be more advanced.

And then there's the use of filters, well known to those familiar with the films of this era, but here swapped in the middle of the scene, with dramatic effect. The "sky" turns from serene blue to a foreboding red at the very moment the hand appears on the wall.

The other interesting point about this film is that the hero of the original text - Daniel - doesn't really make an appearance. Even before Belshazzar has had a chance to get an interpretation of this strange sign, the Medes are upon him and Babylon has fallen.

The BFI synopsis of the film credits Lucien Nonguet as the director and offers the following summary:

DRAMA. Historical. Based on the Old Testament Book of Daniel, Chapter 5. Belshazzar indulges in a lavish feast, surrounded by women, and plied with wine. Suddenly, he perceives a vast, disembodied hand, tracing writing on the wall in a strange language. He is filled with foreboding, and falls back on his couch. A moment later, armed Medes burst in, and carry off the women, and King Belshazzar is slain (123). The End (130 ft).

Campbell and Pitts also discuss the film (p.1)

BELSHAZZAR'S FEAST
1905
France
Pathé
1 reel B/W
Taken from the Book of Daniel, this short theatrical film told of the court of Belshazzar in ancient Babylon and included the Biblical account of the handwriting on the wall. The film was remade, with the same title, by the French Gaumont studio in 1913

La Reine de Saba (Queen of Sheba)

Henri Andréani, Pathé, France, 1913, 19 mins
One of the things that has changed as a result of the birth and growth of film is a universalising in standards of beauty. Whereas, in the past, curvy women were seen as the ideal in some cultures and but not in others, and different skin tones were championed from place to place, today such variety has largely disappeared and been replaced by a standardising of ideas as to what is and is not beautiful.

This effect is something that is simply demonstrated by La Reine de Saba (1913) based on the story of Solomon and the glamorous Queen of Sheba. It's a a well-loved biblical tale which has inspired a wealth of romantic interpretations from Handel's "Arrival of the Queen of Sheba" to the 1959 film Solomon and Sheba starring Yul Brynner and Gina Lollobrigida. But, in the biblical text, there's actually no specific indication of a romance between the two monarchs. Of course Solomon had 700 wives, most of which were royalty from foreign tribes, but using there are two major objections to such conjecture. Firstly, it is doubtful that many of these marriages contained any actual romance. The majority of them would have been made for political purposes, treaties etc., and whilst lust may also have been a factor, this is also distinct from romance. Secondly, whilst this story is included immediately before the statistics about Solomon's marriages, this does not necessarily mean that this is an example of one of them. Indeed, the absence of any suggestion that the two were married may actually indicate that this is intended as a(n ironic?) contrast.

What's also interesting about the original story is that it's a rare example in scripture of the female gaze. Obviously we also find this in Song of Solomon, but these are rare examples. Even Ruth and Esther are written from a more male point of view. So perhaps this is why the story has generally been interpreted as romantic despite any specific statement to that effect.

It's not surprising, then, to find indications of romantic attraction in La Reine de Saba: she hears of his greatness and comes to visit; when she meets Solomon she, very symbolically, removes her veil; she wonders at his wisdom and building programme and showers him with gifts; Solomon gives her gifts in return; the two are clearly smitten; a jealous lover (Horam) is introduced and plans to kill Solomon; Solomon and the queen kiss, but when the queen is called back to her own country Solomon refuses to kiss her goodbye; finally, the queen replaces her veil as she leaves.

Yet, to the modern viewer, the source of Solomon's attraction is not particularly obvious. The queen is far from early 20th century perceptions of beauty. She is probably at least a (UK) size 16 and, gasp, has hairy armpits. These days this actress would struggle to find a job as a villainous school teacher. The hairy armpits, of not only the queen but also of her courtiers, is particularly interesting because this is something that seems to have changed even in my own lifetime. I clearly remember at school discussing the perception that continental European women had hairy armpits - born out by meeting actual German girls on my exchange trip there in the late 80s. Nowadays, this is very rare. Aside from a the shock caused by Julia Roberts, once (!), I can't remember the last time I saw a picture on the media of a woman with hairy armpits. Thus two previous opposing standards of beauty have become one during my lifetime alone. It seems a shame to me that what is considered beautiful has become quite so standardised, particularly given that in reality, even within the same culture, different men like different things and different women like different things. I should add that the photo used above is actually from the now lost 1921 Fox film The Queen of Sheba starring Betty Blythe.

Body hair and beauty aside, the film's biggest set piece is another particularly notable moment, showing the queen's journey to Jerusalem. The procession is huge and seems to incorporate a number of ethic groups. There are Arab men wearing typically "Islamic" hats, including a handful of snake charmers, and there are sub-Saharan African men in conventional dress for that region including spears and so forth. My guess is that this is an attempt to incorporate the disparate theories as to the location of Sheba, though to be either somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula or from around modern day Ethiopia. It's notable, however, that the queen herself, is white.

The plot summary provided by the organisers of the "Ancient World in Silent Cinema II" event gave the film the following synopsis:

King Solomon displays his judgement and wisdom in and around Jerusalem. The Queen of Sheba hears of the fame of Solomon and, following an exchange of letters between them, travels to Jerusalem in a great procession to meet him. She is awed by his wisdom and wealth. Solomon reciprocates with gifts. The jealousy of the queen’s follower Horam is aroused by the feasts given by Solomon. Horam is killed by Solomon’s guards outside the royal bedroom. Messengers from the queen’s court bring news of disorder in her country, so King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are forced to part.

Campbell and Pitts don't cover this film, and the BFI database only has a single sentence by way of summary. "Costume epic drama based on the biblical story of Queen Sheba and King Solomon."

Photo used above is from the now lost 1921 Fox film The Queen of Sheba.

La Vie de Moïse & The Life of Moses

La Vie de Moïse, Pathé, France, 1905.
Interspersed with
The Life of Moses, J. Stuart Blackton, Vitagraph, US, 1909-10, 13 mins.
Perhaps the most unusual story behind the films being shown at last month's Ancient World in Silent Cinema event was these two films, which had been mixed together as if to form one film. The films on display at the event were all taken from one particular collection (the name of which I somehow failed to write down) which was apparently brought together by a teacher in a seminary in Switzerland. Those using Bible films to teach the Bible today can see the idea goes back a long way. Anyway, it appears that the original collector spliced these incidents together from two rather incomplete films, to give a fairly full account of Moses's life. I've listed the events below first with those episodes taken from the 1905 French film in the lighter text, and those from Blackton's 1909-10 US film in the darker text. I've also included biblical references.

Baby Moses on the Nile - (Ex 2:1-9)
Israelite Slaves - (Ex 1:11-14)
Moses kills an Egyptian - (Ex 2:11-14)
Moses flees - (Ex 2:15)
Moses meets Jethro & his Daughters - (Ex 2:16-22)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Return to Egypt - (Ex 4:18-23; 27-31)
Before Pharaoh - (Ex 12:31-42)
Parting of the Red Sea - (Ex 14)
Manna from Heaven - (Ex 16)
Water from the Rock - (Ex 17:1-7)
Giving of the Ten Commandments - (Ex 20)
Radiant Face of Moses - (Ex 34:29-35)

Unfortunately, writing these films up has taken me longer than I anticipated (I still blame East Midlands trains), and so the details of these two films are beginning to fail me, but here are a few observations based on what I wrote at the time and the odd memory that is yet to desert me.

When Moses is portrayed as a young man his complexion is surprisingly dark. There's little attempt to fill in his backstory - as opposed to the two or so hour DeMille devoted to this part of Moses' life not covered by the Hebrew Bible - we see some Israelite slaves in the pits making bricks, and of the three silent Moses films this is the one that goes into the most detail with different shots detailing different steps in the process. It's an almost documentary-esque sequence which we snap out of once Moses enters the frame. Two Israelites have been having a heated discussion when an Egyptian attempts to restore order. Moses kills the Egyptian but rather than thanking him, the two Israelites continue their quarrel pausing only to tell others what Moses has done.

Moses fears the worst and not giving Pharaoh a chance to hear of it, he goes to the house of Miriam and Aaron and flees. Moses is clearly already familiar with the two of them, and they help him in his flight. Moses arrives in Midian in time to save Jethro's daughters, and then encounters the burning bush in the next scene. What's interesting about the sequence of events presented here is how closely it corresponds to the biblical account. The bulrushes scene is obviously from a different film from the rest of the Exodus 2 material, but it sticks fairly closely to the events as they are presented with little embellishment.

Special effects were still fairly basic in this period, but it's interesting to see how quickly they develop. Some of the early Pathé films really did make the most of the medium here - consider, for instance, the walking on water and ascension scenes from Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. The only episode here to appear in both films is the burning bush and we see two contrasting special effect techniques. The later film here is shown first. The bush seems to have been actually set on fire, but before the scene ends the fire has gone out. The other scene, shot perhaps 5 years earlier in 1905 uses a less realistic technique - air blown streamers flying up from the vent they are ties to in the floor. The streamers technique feels more primitive, much more the kind of thing one would expect to see in a play in the theatre (at least before pyrotechnics were invented). It's quite a development in five years, though viewing it over a century later the streamers do give it an otherworldly feel that the realism of the Blackton film perhaps lacks.

The plagues are largely omitted: there's two brief scenes back in Egypt (from the US film) before we return to the earlier movie to witness the parting of the Red Sea. Given this is such an early film, it's very cleverly done (although it emphasises just how impressive DeMille's efforts were less than 20 years later). My memory is a little sketchy at this point so perhaps anyone else who saw this film could confirm or deny what follows. There's a mid shot of Moses and some Hebrews, with some "sea" in the foreground. Moses prays/ commands and this water seems to move and drain away (it's perhaps shot on an actual beach as a wave goes out. There's then a cut to a body of water which jostles about and retreats. This looks like it could have been something shot in reverse.

Special effects abound in the next scene as we see manna fall from heaven like snowflakes, followed swiftly by Moses striking a rock to bring forth water. At a guess I'd say this was the same set as the earlier burning bush scene, certainly the low-ish camera angles and the backdrop are very similar.

The last scene, again from the earlier film, is of the giving of the Ten Commandments. Moses is met on Mount Sinai by some angels who give him the stone tablets. By this stage Moses's hair has turned white and he has a halo. Once he descends a little the halo is replaced by two rays from his head after Exodus 34:29-35. It's an interesting halfway house between the "horned" face of Jerome's Vulgate translation, and the now more widely accepted "radiant" face. The horned Moses, as portrayed in Michaelangelo's famous sculpture above, was usually thought to have two horns, and here he is given two rays that come out of his head initially as if they were horns.

The BFI database doesn't include a synopsis for this film, but does list some alternative titles, one of which is Moses and the Exodus from Egypt for which Campbell and Pitts give the following summary:

Moses and the Exodus from Egypt
1907, France, Pathé, 478 feet B/W
Another short film in Pathé's series of Biblical movies, this outing was perhaps the first flicker to tell the story of Moses. Included in this lost silent were the scenes of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments and the falling of the manna from heaven.

The later film actually appears to be a collection of shorter films released individually between 1909 and 1910. Again the BFI offers few details. Whilst they list each entry separately, the only details are the names of the company (Vitagraph) and director (J. Stuart Blackton). It lists the following four episodes:

I. PERSECUTION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BY THE EGYPTIANS
II. FORTY YEARS IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN
III. PLAGUES OF EGYPT AND THE DELIVERANCE OF THE HEBREWS
IV. THE VICTORY OF ISRAEL

Campbell and Pitts give this a much more significant write up, naming five episodes and giving release dates. The titles match, and the final episode is called The Promised Land

THE LIFE OF MOSES
1909-1910, Vitagraph, 5 reels, B/W.
Director: J. Stuart Blackton
Screenplay: Rev. Madison C. Peters
CAST: William Humphrey, Charles Kent, Julia Arthur, Earle Williams, Edith Story.
Vitagraph released THE LIFE OF MOSES in five parts beginning December 11, 1909 and culminating February 19, 1910. The whole film told the story of Moses and how he led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land.
The portions of the film and their release dates are:
Part One: "The Life of Moses" (December 11, 1909).
Part Two: "Forty Years in the Land of Midian" (December 31, 1909).
Part Three: "Plagues of Egypt and the Deliverance of the Hebrews" (February 5, 1910).
Part Four: "The Victory of Israel" (February 12, 1910)
Part Five: "The Promised Land" (February 19, 1910)
The first of a supposed series of Biblical pictures from Vitagraph, THE LIFE OF MOSES
Showed such happenings as the pillar of fire, the parting of the Red Sea and the giving of The Ten Commandments. The Moving Picture World called it "a picture that is deserving of the greatest praise and commendations as a whole"

Incidentally, J. Stuart Blackton was also the director of a number of other Bible films including Salome (1908), Saul and David from 1909, and Jephthah's Daughter; A Biblical Tragedy (1909) which was one of those that was originally due to be shown at the UCL event, but had to be cut for reasons of time.

L'Exode (Exodus)

Louise Feuillade, Gaumont, France, 1910, 13 mins. The image is, of course, from DeMille's 1923 The Ten Commandments, but of all the silent films about the Moses story, and a good deal of those since, L'Exode is easily the most daring. Whereas DeMille stacked the pack, making Pharaoh's son a brat so that none of us minded when the finger of God bumped him off, L'Exode portrays him far more sympathetically. The result is a thought provoking and challenging film which makes us question which side we are really rooting for. By the end we are glad that Moses and the Israelites have left Egypt, but for all the wrong reasons. Our sympathies lie with the Egyptians and we are relieved to see the children of Jacob ejected from the land.

The film builds carefully towards this climax from its opening scene. Like DeMille's film the story starts between the ninth and ten plagues, In fact, one of the film's German titles was Zehnte Plage (Tenth Plague) - the other being Auszug Der Kinder Israels Aus Ägypten (The Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt). We open with an interior shot of a very elderly Moses consulting men who are presumably the elders of Israel. I say 'presumably' because not only are the intertitles are in German but the interior of the room (I was going to say palace) is sufficiently luxurious to leave the audience wondering which scene from the Bible they have just witnessed. The brilliant-white haired man whose matching beard almost reaches his waist could certainly be Moses, but the room is certainly not typical of a Hebrew slave. But if this is the palace then where is Pharaoh? Or even some in Egyptian dress?

But all becomes clear when those present in the room disband to instruct the Israelites on how to mark their door posts with lambs blood. This scene is again deserves some discussion, not least because it is taken as one long shot which pans back and forth from door to door, focussing in on doors at different depths. This must have been a relatively unusual use of the camera in 1910, but thematically it unifies the individual households as the camera moves gracefully from one to the next.

This panning shot is also fairly graphic, as the camera moves from door to door we see the throats of lambs being slit, their blood being drained off and sprinkled on the doorposts. On a single viewing it's difficult to work out whether or not these lambs were actually killed on set. Certainly movies in those says were not monitored by the American Humane Association and there were several instances of people being killed on set during a shoot. The blood is also flicked onto the doorpost using a hyssop branch rather than daubed as per The Ten Commandments (1956). Exodus 12:22 says only to "Strike" the door with the blood drenched hyssop, but elsewhere in the Torah (Lev. 14, Num. 19) it talks about using Hyssop to sprinkle blood as part of a ritual.

Next we move to inside Moses's house, which is clearly a different building from the room he is shown in earlier. Here he and his family gather to share the passover meal. Exodus has God calling for this meal to be celebrated at night, yet light streams into the room from an upper window. This may have been a mistake, or a theological statement about new light or a new dawn or such like. Either way, the resulting shot is stunning. The Bioscope basks in its "Rembrandt lighting". Certainly it was the most memorable shot in the whole collection of films, and thankfully the director was sufficiently aware of his achievement to linger on the short for us to fully enjoy it.

The scene is very much reminiscent of the same scene in DeMille's 1956 The Ten Commandments, only without Rembrandt's lighting: an unadorned room with only a plain table in the middle; various guests, including servants, joining in the meal; newcomers entering via the door in the wall on the right hand side of the camera. There is seemingly no other room in building and the camera stays largely at a distance with the length of the table crossing the width of the screen. Given that DeMille had always been a devout Christian, and his interest in films was such that he would make his first movie just four years later, it's more than possible that he saw this film and was, on some level, influenced by it, though perhaps only DeMille could take such a wonderfully composed shot and remove it's most striking element for the sake of biblical fidelity.

It's at this point that the film's emphasis moves from Moses and the Israelites to the Egyptians. We're introduced to Pharaoh's son but, in contrast to the 1923 DeMille version, he is shown sympathetically. Here is a normal child that one cannot help but warm to - a sense of connection that is immediately overshadowed by the knowledge that we know his fate. Perhaps even more unusually, as he begins to display signs of illness we see Pharaoh's tenderness toward his son, and the concern of his carers.

The son's death is followed fairly swiftly by a cut to the house of a miller where a similar scenario unfolds. The miller and his wife are concerned by their daughter's health, but having placed her on a chair he continues with his work. He's a big man pushing a huge millstone, yet the tension of the previous scene and the sickening sense that we know what is shortly to occur is heightened as the miller slowly grinds the millstone round one more revolution. At first he has is back to her, then his view of her is obstructed by the stone itself. By the time he returns to where he started the child has died. The grief is palpable, all the more on the day due to Stephen Horne's hauntingly evocative live piano accompaniment.

There's a wealth of symbolism here. Whereas Pharaoh sits at the very top of this kingdom, the miller sits at the bottom. Pharaoh was at least responsible for what unfolds: the miller is entirely innocent. His back-breaking work almost indistinguishable from that of the Hebrew slaves. As the camera first cuts to the scene it seems almost unimportant - as if an important character is about to enter and make an announcement, perhaps announcing the death of Pharaoh's son, or of children all over the nation. In contrast to the scene with Pharaoh's son, here, it only gradually dawns on us that this is the scene we are waiting for, and that therefore the little girl is also doomed. There's no doubt that much could also be made of the symbolic nature of his profession, going round in circles, crushing the grain and so on.

As if the emotional impact of these two scenes was not great enough, the next is a real sucker punch. In a courtyard, perhaps in Pharaoh's palace, two parents mourn their lost child. They are soon joined by two more, and then two more, and so on until the frame is crammed with parents mourning their lost children. It's the kind of scene that is utterly absent from both the Bible and from any other film version of this story, creating sympathy for the Egyptians, and causing believers to re-visit this story from the point of view of those on the other side. Horne accompaniment may have made it all the more poignant, but the sympathy for those on the losing side of this biblical narrative is certainly there amongst the visuals alone. The scene concludes with an intertitle that mentions the 430 years in Egypt and the 600,000 Hebrews that let Egypt during the Exodus.

But given these three scenes, it is hardly surprising that when the Israelites leave, they are almost thrown out, rather than leaving joyously with gifts from the Egyptians. Indeed they are quite literally shown the door. The scene is on a much smaller scale than the one from The Ten Commandments (1923) shown above and is relatively short. The film's abrupt ending, just as the Exodus begins, seems to reinforce the Egyptian perspective - there's no concern for how the Hebrews will fare now. L'Exode (Exodus) is not so much about the birth of one people group so much as the death of another.

The BFI synopsis suggests that either the start of this film was missing, or that I don't recall it and failed to write notes on it. Here is their entire summary:

BIBLICAL DRAMA. Moses warns Pharaoh; marking the Israelites' doors; the Passover feast; the death of the firstborn; the Israelites leave the city. No main title or first intertitle. Pharaoh sits, surrounded by his court. Four women bring in his son whom he kisses affectionately. A black guard announces Moses, who is always led by Aaron and followed by a group of Israelites. Moses foretells the tenth plague and leaves. Pharaoh embraces the boy (133). " Die Vorbeerereitungen zum Osterfest..." (149). Moses, with long white forked beard, seated indoors while Aaron kneels besides him, instructs the Israelites about the Passover (246). Street: man takes a dead lamb indoors while a woman holds a bowl of blood and a man marks doorposts with blood. Pan to Moses sprinkling blood on another doorpost. By a third door a lamb's blood is being drained (380). "Das Erste Osterfest..." (395). Indoors: A couple lay a table. The Israelites enter. Moses celebrates the first passover: he preaches and prays. A roast lamb is put on the table. Moses hands out food (714). "Die Zehnte plage..." (730). Pharaoh's son sleeps surrounded by harpist, mandolin player and fanwaver. Pharaoh enters, kisses him and leaves. The boy starts up, gasps and flops dead, arms outstretched (823). A man pulls two huge vertical millstones round a central post on a horizontal six foot millstone while his wife cradles their son. She joins her husband's work. The child wakes, chokes and dies (912). The dead firstborn are brought into the street by their wailing parents. Moses and the Israelites enter. Pharaoh tells them to leave (1050). " Der Auszug..." (1063). Outside the city gates: Pharaoh sits on a dais among a crowd. The exodus: an excited child runs out of the gates, followed by Aaron leading Moses, crowds of Israelites, a herd of goats and two camels (1171). Incomplete (1476ft). Note: The four surviving German intertitles have the Gaumont logo: a G in a ring of stars. They are numbered AL B 2375 2 to AL B 2375 5. Note: Also held: A 690ft viewing copy in faded colour 205627A. It consists of: Moses instructing Israelites; marking doors; Passover feast (133-582); A one foot glimpse of the black guard from the first scene; The exodus (1063-1171ft) The order on the viewing copy is currently B A C D

Moïse Sauvé des Eaux (Moses saved from the River)

Henri Andréani, Pathé, France, 1910, 8 mins
Moïse Sauvé des Eaux was the first of three silent Bible films shown at the Ancient World in Silent Cinema event last week. Despite the similarity of subject and proximity of production, it was noticeable how different all three films were.

As much as anything, this film stood out for its use of colour. Contrary to popular belief colour was fairly popular in silent films: the earliest films use colour filters or hand-tinted the prints to bring in colour, whilst two- and three-strip technicolour was in use during the 1920s. Given that this film was made in 1910 it was too early to be even two-strip technicolor. That said, the films in which I had seen hand-colouring used had done so fairly primitvely. Lots of colouring outside the lines and so on. By contrast, the colouring in was so impressive that I'm still not entirely convinced that this was a hand-tinted film, but so far no other explanation suffices.

The film itself starts with Amram working with his fellow Israelites when a messenger brings the edict from Pharaoh that male, Hebrew babies are to be executed. We see the message courtesy of an intertitle styled like a scroll which contrasts with Pathé's usual red text on a black background style. As his son will later do, Amram steps in to stop a fellow slave getting beaten and then makes his way home to warn his family.

Inside the house, Amram and his wife (who is identified as Jochebed) decide to hide Moses whilst Miriam and Aaron look on. Rather unusually they wrap him up in straw and hang him from a hook above head height. The Egyptian soldiers are soon upon them and proceed to stick a sword into anything that looks like it might contain a baby, even the bundle of straw on the hook next to Moses's. The scene is actually rather tense, all the more impressive given the audience already knows that Moses will survive.

An intertitle card quotes Hebrews 11:23 and we revert to the exterior shot outside Amram and Jochebed's house. Shortly afterwards we see Jochebed gather Moses and a basket and head to the river with Miriam. There basket and baby are placed in the reeds, where they remain (rather than being floated down the river as in most other Moses films) which is actually in keeping with Exodus 2:3. Miriam hides - rather poorly it must be added - to keep an eye on her little brother, and when Pharaoh's daughter and her entourage come along she is quick to offer her mother's services as a wet nurse. So little time has elapsed that Jochebed has not gone far and baby and mother are reunited. There's a brief introduction to the Pharaoh.

The portrayal of Amram is also interesting, as although he is usually portrayed as rather a passive figure, he is depicted here as more of a heroic character.

Campbell and Pitts make no mention of this film and even the BFI database gives it a mere paragraph.

DRAMA. Biblical. The story of Moses. No main title. Credit (2). The father of Moses is seen at work with the Israelites. An edict is read by Pharaoh's messenger announcing that all newborn male sons of the Israelites must be put to death. The Israelites are angered and return to their homes. Moses' father tells the family of the edict. Pharaoh's soldiers arrive to collect the newborn boys. Moses is hidden in a basket hanging from the roof. The soldiers enter but fail to find the child. The mother takes Moses and his sister takes a basket, they bid farewell to the distraught father and take the child to the Nile. There they set Moses adrift in the rushes. Pharaoh's daughter and her entourage arrive at the river to bathe. They discover the baby and Pharaoh's daughter adopts him. Moses' mother imposes herself on Pharaoh's daughter and offers her services as a wet nurse. Pharaoh's daughter agrees. On their return to court Pharaoh's daughter presents Moses to her father (707ft). Note: German titles.

Painting is Nicolas Poussin's "The Finding of Moses" from 1638.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ (1902-5)

Having discussed what I can only conclude are two forerunners to this film last week, I thought now would be as good a time as any to comment on the film that is the best known version of much of this material - The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ. In 1995 it was one of the 45 films included on the Vatican Film list, and was released on DVD, along with From the Manger to the Cross (1912) in 2003. The text included on that DVD is as follows:

La Vie Et La Passion De Jesus-Christ, N.S. was begun in 1902 by Ferdinand Zecca (1964-1947) for Pathé Frères in Paris, then the most important film company in the world. Zecca made 18 carefully costumed and staged tableaux against painted back-drops which are clearly influenced by the famous Biblical woodcuts of Gustave Dore (1866). In 1903, Pathé Frères developed a sophisticated system for applying up to four colors to each film print by a stencil process; that year and in 1904, ten new tableaux were added to the film. Finally, in 1905, Zecca's collaborator, Lucien Nonguet, added three final scenes, and the resulting color film of 31 tableaux with a running time of 44 minutes became the most impressive of its kind and one of the first long films in the world. Presented by missionaries and itinerant showmen from Indiana to Indochina, it helped establish the popular iconography of the Divine story. This edition is restored from two excellent 35mm original prints and presents The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ as it looked a century ago.

What's most noticeable about this film is how unsophisticated the camera work is as Peter T Chattaway notes in his chapter in "Re-Viewing the Passion" (reproduced at Christianity Today):

Nearly every shot is a simple tableau in which the camera stands still and observes the entire stage, as it were, while the actors move about within the frame. The few exceptions to this format stand out precisely because they are so rare.

The following scenes are shown (citation guide)

Annunciation - (Luke 1:26-38)
Birth - (Luke 2:1-7)
Shepherds - (Luke 2:8-18)
Star & Wise Men - (Matt 2:1, 10-12)
Massacre of the Innocents - (Matt 2:16)
Flight to Egypt - (Matt 2:13-15)
Boy Jesus in the Temple - (Luke 2:40-52)
Baptism - (Mark 1:6-11)
Wedding at Cana - (John 2:1-11)
Mary Anoints Jesus - (Mark 14:3-9)
Samaritan Woman - (John 4:4-29)
Jairus' Daughter - (Mark 5:22-24,35-43)
Walking on Water - (Mark 6:47-48)
Catch of Fish - (Luke 5:1-6)
Lazarus raised - (John 11)
Transfiguration - (Mark 9:2-8)
Triumphal Entry - (Mark 11:1-10)
Clearing the Temple - (Mark 11:15-19)
Last Supper - (Mark 14:16-25
Gethsemane - (Mark 14:32-42)
Trial before Caiaphas - (Luke 22:66-71)
Peter's denial - (Mark 14:66-72)
Trial before Pilate - (Mark 15:1-15a)
Scourging & Mocking - (Mark 15b:15-20a)
Crowds Condemn Jesus - (John 19:5-16)
Road to the cross - (Mark 15:20b-22)
(Veronica) - (Tradition)
Crucifixion - (Mark 15:22-33)
Death of Jesus - (John 19:30,34)
(Actual Resurrection)
Empty Tomb - (Mark 16:1-8)
Acension - (Luke 24:50-53)

A Few Notes:
As far as I can recall, this is the only film about Jesus that chooses to show the Transfiguration. There are two others which also do, The Visual Bible's Matthew, and the Genesis Project's Luke (which was condensed into the Jesus film, both of which had to cover the as they were filming the whole gospel. That said the former film avoids showing it anyway - simply showing the narrator (if I remember correctly). The latter film, however, didn't have to include that episode in the cut down film Jesus, but still does.

Since this has been professionally released the quality of the print is much better than the other films, but even so it appears that it has been restored to something of it's former glory - there is a real crispness to the images we see here.

Another scene that is usually ignored is the Woman of Samaria. Other than this film and it's siblings (I should mention that this film was shot for shot re-made in 1914/1915 with a couple of extra scenes, and extra intertitles and released as Son of Man) the woman of Samaria story is only included in Il Messia (Rosellini - 1975), and the Visual Bible's Gospel of John (2003). Again in the case of the latter film the scene had to be shot. This story is a popular text for preaching, and so it's strange that it is generally ignored in film.

Sadly despite this film having been widely available in the last few years there is relatively little comment available on it. The best review I've come across is by Steven D Greydanus. He says so many things so well that rather than repeat them all again, only less eloquently, it's better if I just link to his review at Decent Films. In addition to his discussion of the film linked to above, Peter T Chattaway also comments on the film at Canadian Christianity. The three of us also talk briefly about the film at Arts and Faith (there was a longer thread on the old forum, but sadly that appears to be lost). Finally, Mike Hernstein of the Flickerings festival discusses it as part of his excellent Survey of Jesus films - probably the best collection of comments on Jesus films on the web to date.

Early films about David and Saul (1911-1913)

The final films on the DVD I've been discussing this week are both about the Hebrew King Saul; David et Saul (David and Saul) made in 1911 and La Mort de Saül(The Death of Saul) made two years later in 1913.

These films are also made by Pathé Frères and not listed in Campbell and Pitts' "The Bible on Film". They do list two other related films David and Goliath (1908) and Saul and David (1909), which is also listed on the IMDB . What is unusual about these two films is the subject material they choose to handle, particularly given that only a couple of films based on 1 Samuel had been made by this point. I imagine if you asked a modern day viewer which episodes from the books of Samuel they were most familiar with they would firstly list David and Goliath, and then perhaps David and Bathsheba, or the calling of Samuel, or the anointing of Saul or David. I'm not sure whether it's a sign of how much the parts of the bible we focus on have changed so much in 95 years, or that, even upon its release, they were unusual choices. Suffice to say none of the above scenes are in either of these films, the details of which are below:

David and Saul (1911)
David returns from beating the Philistines - (1 Sam 17/ 1 Sam 18:27)
David marries Michal - (1 Sam 18:27)
Saul grows jealous - (1 Sam 18:6-9)
David feigns madness whilst in hiding - (1 Sam 21:10-15
Saul slaughters the priests - (1 Sam 22:6-18)
David hides from Saul - (1 Sam 23:24-28)

Death of Saul (1913)
Saul slaughters the priests - (1 Sam 22:6-18)
The Witch of Endor - (1 Sam 28)
The death of Saul - (1 Sam 31:1-6)

What we do see is a great deal of attention given to Saul ordering the killing of the priests of Nob, which appears in both films. The review of The Death of Saul at IMDb notes how:

"The story of David and Saul is an interesting and ambitious choice of material, and this short feature does a creditable job of filming it. The story has plenty of action, plus some significant psychological themes, and this movie succeeds in bringing out at least some of both."

In my opinion the most successful biblical films have been those that use less familiar material to challenge our pre-conceptions, or are at least more concerned with trying to explore their protagonist's motives.

A few notes:
It's interesting that the first film starts with a celebration of David's victory over the Philistines. I put chapter 17 as a possible reference, but that's probably just re-coiling from the fact that the most likely victory this refers to is the one where he gives 200 Philistine foreskins to Saul as a wedding dowry (1 Sam 18:27). Certainly the fact that at the end of the scene Saul holds David and a very un-cinematic Michal together indicates that it is this victory which is being celebrated.

Although this film doesn't actually show the incident where David chooses not to kill Saul when he had the chance, it does refer to it in the intertitles "Fatigued Saul seeks repose in the cave where David was hidden". However, instead of seeing David cut Saul's cloak or steal his spear, the scene following this intertitle seems to portray David hiding on the other side of the mountain (1 Sam 23:24-28). The film crams a lot in, in a very short time, and it's hard for the viewer - even if they have a good knowledge of the various stories - to work out what is being depicted.

The break between the two films on the DVD I have is very slight, and most of the scant discussion of these two films on the web seems to treat them as one. In fact I noticed that the title of the film, placed at the top of each intertitle, changed before I noticed the briefly shown intertitle card that announced the new film.

The second film is two years later, and the filmmakers have significantly improved in that time. The use of a red colour wash during the sacking of Nob is quite effective, as is the use of special effects when Samuel appears in the witch's cave. There's also a really impressive scene (coming soon) where a large crowd of Philistines rush past the camera into the battle. Except for the old black and white celluloid
the way this action is filmed is on a par with anything today, and is the most impressive sequence I can recall at any point before Birth of a Nation revolutionised film in 1915.

It is interesting how the second film paraphrases Saul's prophesy into three clauses and then shows each happening in turn:

"Thy armies shall be delivered into the hands of the Philistines
Thy sons shall perish
Thy sword shall avenge the God of Israel"

It's not quite what Samuel says (1 Sam 28:19), but the way the film takes each clause and shows it happening is a far more sophisticated narrative device than was standard for the era.

Finally, although the second film is about the same length as the first it takes things much more slowly. The emphasis here seems to be much more on Saul and what is happening to him internally, than the events that are happening around him. It also allows a chiastic structure to the events. The film starts with Saul destroying the priests of Nob, and ends with him being destroyed by them, separated only by an announcement of God's judgement upon him, and linking the two actions nicely together.

Matt