Testament: Ruth

I recently came to the realisation that Ruth is one of my favourite books of the Hebrew Bible. It's fine reading about kings and prophets, mighty leaders and spiritual giants. Inspiring even. But, as is no doubt clear, I am not such a person and the chances are that you aren't either. For those of us lesser mortals, Ruth is our kinswoman. It's true she ultimately became the great grandmother of Israel's most famous king, but, at the same time, it's unlikely that she lived to know it.

What I find inspiring about Ruth is that she is so ordinary. She didn't seem to aspire to greatness, indeed I doubt she would have been able to conceivable of any way in which she might still be talked about 3000 years later, and her achievements must have seemed modest. And yet three generations later her loyalty, faithfulness and love have had huge implications.

The second thing that draws me to Ruth is the way she makes the right choices in the toughest of circumstances. Her story is told against a backdrop of famine grief and broken dreams. All she has left is her mother-in-law, and, watching this yesterday (Mother's Day in the UK), I was struck by what a fantastic example this is of how to honour one's mothers or strive for the best for one's (adult) child.

At the same time there is a huge cultural gap between the story of Ruth and today, which both the text and Testament's adaptation of it highlight without losing the story's relevance for all cultures. It's a culture of where the thought can cross your mind of remarrying in order to have another son to marry your widowed daughter-in-law. It's a world of sealing contracts by taking off your sandal, gleaning etiquette and making sexual advances by uncovering the other person's feet.

Other versions of this story never really capture the essence of this other world, but this film does it admirably. A key factor here is the choice of medium. The 3D puppets that the animators use lend the film a sense of nostalgia and tradition. Furthermore using an animated format from another culture, albeit a different culture from the one in which the story is set, heightens the feeling of otherness. At the same time the skill of the animators make Ruth an incredibly appealing figure capturing her vulnerability without making her seem a victim.

The film's lighting and use of colour also heighten the power of the story. The early scenes of famine and the death of Naomi and Ruth's husbands are dark and at times fairly mono-chromatic, which contrasts with Ruth's brilliant blue robe. There are also a couple of other visual links to the Virgin Mary – another woman who gives birth to a "royal" son in Bethlehem. But the film as a whole makes use of a broad colour palate, often quite dramatically, whilst still maintaining that sense of the past, which is so critical even in the text's original context.

It's also to the film's credit that it portrays Naomi as a little cranky early on. Again it's easy to portray Naomi as a helpless victim, but giving her this personality not only reflects the bitterness of her recent experience, but also gives her a sense of fight and strength of character. It also suggests that Ruth's actions not only provide for her mother-in-law, but draw Naomi out of her grief and bitterness.

Whilst Ruth, through no fault of its own, lacks the dramatic source material of other films in the Testament series, it's poignant character study and visual form make it possibly the best entry in the nine-film series, giving a sense of what an ordinary life can look like when lived by the most unordinary values.

Echoes of the Bible in Tokyo Story

Tokyo Story (1953) is perhaps the most celebrated film of Japanese director Yasujiro Ozu. As the film is set in, and was the product of, Japanese culture it's clearly not based on the Bible, and where religion features in the film it's Shintoism that is being considered rather than Christianity. Nevertheless, as I watched it last night I was struck by a couple of echoes of scripture that I wanted to discuss briefly.

The story, such as it is, revolves around an elderly couple who travel to Tokyo to catch up with some of their family. They had 5 children, their daughter Kyoko still lives with them in Onomichi; their other daughter, Shige, has married and lives in Tokyo; Koichi, now a doctor, is also in Tokyo with his wife and 2 children; Keiso lives in closer-to-home Osaka; and lastly Shoji died during the war leaving his widow, Noriko, alone.

Once in Tokyo they are confronted with their children's disinterest - only Noriko goes out of her way to make their time in Tokyo special. Having been shunted off to the highly unsuitable Atami, they decide to return home. On the way the mother is taken ill, so then stop with their son in Osaka before continuing back a day or two later. Shortly after the mother dies, but even then she is treated with a degree of indifference.It's fairly clear that the film is not particular intended to evoke stories from the Bible. The fact that is does so for some viewers is merely a coincidence based on the universality of this story and those we find in scripture. Such is the nature of good art: the perspective the viewer brings to it is significant, and it enables him/her to reflect on that perspective and what has formed it. It can shed new light on an issue, and in this case, not expecting such a dialogue can catch a viewer unaware helping them view a story from an unexpected angle.

I found myself constantly mulling over two stories from the Bible as Tokyo Story meandered towards its climax, both of which relate to the way that Noriko the daughter-in-law plays the role of a true daughter in contrast to her husband's siblings.

The first of which is the story of Ruth. Whilst Noriko's father-in-law is still alive, her husband has been killed, and both her and her in-laws clearly have a great love for each other. There is particular devotion between the two women which is touchingly portrayed. The Bible is very upfront about the devotion Naomi and Ruth show for each other, but, as a result, it leaves little room for the subtler nuances we find here.The other story that came to mind was that of the Good Samaritan. The parable is so well known to most churchgoers that it requires serious reworking to restore its original punch. The recent Oscar winner Crash did this very well. Here the comparisons are much less low key, but the same emphasis is present - those who treat you well are not necessarily those you might expect. Noriko acts an example for us all.

I loved the subtlety and humility with which this film explored it subject. In honesty I struggled to stay awake, and briefly nodded off at least once, but, as I'm getting older I find that the quality of a film rarely correlates to my ability to keep my eyes open. Indeed, often the fact that a film doesn't rely on fuelling my adrenaline, but offers me a more honest and realistic exploration of life is a mark of its quality itself.

Roger Ebert's review is, as always worth checking out, and there are a couple of other reviews of it at The Guardian as well.

Golem, l'esprit de l'exil(Golem, the Spirit of Exile)

One of the reasons I first started this blog was to have somewhere to write down a few notes on a Bible film after I had seen it. One of the things I've found over the years is that by writing about a film I come to understand it more. But somewhere along the line, I've ended up only writing reviews, or scene guides, in other words things that are a bit more polished. This, in turn, means that I end delaying writing certain pieces until I forget about them and they never get written

So I've decided to return to my roots for this one. The main reason for doing this is that Golem, l'esprit de l'exil is such a complex film that it's hard to really "get it" on a first viewing, particularly given the paucity of commentary and analysis on it. I may return, on further reflection, to write a more thought-out review, (particularly once I've had a chance to watch the interviews that are included amongst the DVD's extra features), but if not then at least I've documented my thoughts in some form.

The story of Golem is not,from the Bible of course. It's based on later Jewish texts which describe an "animated being created entirely from inanimate matter".¹ A wealth of stories have sprung up around these texts, involving appearances to Rabbis, defending the Jewish people from anti-Semitic attacks, and so on. The stories of these dumb, shadow beings, and the themes associated with them can be seen at work in more recent artistic pieces. The monster in Shelley's "Frankenstein" is clearly in this tradition. Other examples are Gustav Meyrink's 1915 novel Der Golem which inspired a series of silent movies, (such as the 1920 film The Golem) and Julien Duvivier's "Le Golem" (1936). Today "Golem" evokes "Lord of the Rings", which has clearly been influenced by these traditions.Having said all that there is also a strong biblical element to this film. This functions on two levels: narrative and text. The film's narrative is essentially a modernisation of the story of Ruth. Naomi and Elimelech are migrants in gentile France and their two sons are romantically involved with two gentile women. Elimelech's death is followed swiftly by his sons "being killed in a hate crime", leaving the three women alone.² One returns to her parents, the other, Ruth, stays with Naomi, and the pair return to Israel. There Ruth meets and marries Boaz and eventually bears him a son.

On a textual level there are, of course, a number of passages from the Book of Ruth. However, the script also quotes numerous chunks of scripture from various places in the Old Testament: Genesis, Ecclesiastes and the prophets. All of this is interwoven with modern day additions which give the biblical quotations a more staid feel whilst simultaneously underlining their importance.One of the most interesting things about this film is how it uses it's French context. As noted above, this is a gentile, and furthermore secular, setting, and there's a sense in which the characters of Naomi, Elimelech and their two sons always seem out of somewhat out of place. This is perhaps underscored most forcefully when the Orpah figure returns to her parents home. But it also has the effect of putting us (well, westerners) on the side of the original story's Moabites, rather than on the side of the original stories Israelites (as The Story of Ruth does by choosing a non-US actress to play Ruth).

Whilst, on the one hand, being companions, there's a tension in the original story between Naomi, who is eager to return to her home land, and Ruth who is actually leaving her home land in order to stay with Naomi. This aspect is brought out superbly by what is perhaps my favourite shot in the film. Naomi and Ruth are seated on the back of an open truck, sights from urban France passing in the background. There's a deliberately unrealistic feel here which combines with the slightly meditative soundtrack to give the scene a feeling of detachment. But whereas Naomi sits out in front and looks forward to what's ahead, Ruth looks behind her with a certain sadness.

Screen Shot to follow

It's relatively unusual that films based on the Bible contain much nudity, perhaps because this might alienate some of the potential audience for such films. As Golem clearly isn't on a quest for ratings it's a little more free to experiment in this regard. So all three couples are shown in some sort of frank love scene, which as Peter Chattaway points out gives extra poignancy to the scenes following their deaths. Their depth of relationship has been heavily underscored prior to the tragedy.³

There's also an unusual nude scene between Naomi and Ruth. This could also be interpreted as a love scene, especially as Song of Songs is quoted at the time, but there's little indication, at least from the acting that this is the case. Some scholars have speculated that Ruth 1:14's use of the word translated clave (traditionally used to indicate marriage e.g. Gen 2:24) suggests this, but personally I'm unconvinced. The book does indicate a strong attachment between these women, and the intimacy and tenderness of this scene, whilst clearly beyond the realms of the text, does bring that home.

It's perhaps stating the obvious to say that this film also has a great deal to say about migration. Many consider the canonical purpose of the Book of Ruth to be to counter anti-gentile feeling during / following Ezra's reforms. Here Gitai is clearly keen to highlight the dangers migrants to the west - Elimelech is killed in a (preventable) industrial accident; his sons are "murdered" because of their nationality, and you get the impression that the police are not taking the case particularly seriously; Naomi is evicted and is told that she cannot bury her family in France, and thus, is effectively deported.

I'll end with a quote from Gitai himself:

"The Book of Ruth is based on a documentary story: a family in Bethlehem suffers from the famine there and goes to Moab, the "new country of exile". But the biblical writer takes this event and transforms it into fictional material. And this then becomes eventually even more than fiction: it becomes a sanctified myth. We, in turn, place the biblical story in the present and work with those ambiguities, but we strip away some of the sanctification, keeping the mythological echoes but placing them in the here and now. The issue of creation is the general framework of the film and, inside this framework, there is a permanent back and forth movement to the issue of exile. Through the Golem, I tried to deal with some of my own questions regarding the cinematic language. In Golem, the Spirit of Exile, the central spine of the story is the theme of being uprooted, which links the whole trilogy".⁴

====
1 - "Golem" from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
2 - Peter Chattaway - "Passion disturbing, inspiring and challenging" - http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0304/22passion
3 - Peter Chattaway - OnFilm message board - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onfilm/message/4404
4 - Amos Gitai, in Yann Lardeau, "Les Films d'Amos Gitai", (unpublished)

Euphemism and Counter- Euphemism in The Story of Ruth

As part of last nights' Through the Bible in Five and a Half Years session on Ruth we looked at 3 different film portrayals of Ruth, the version that was part of the Testament series, Henry Koster's The Story of Ruth and Amos Gitai's Golem:Spirit of Exile which I hope to write about shortly.

One subject that we dwelt on perhaps a little more than was ideal was the issue of euphemism in Ruth 3. I've long heard it said that when Naomi tells Ruth to uncover Boaz's "feet", she actually means his genitals. There's debate about it, but it remains a possibility. Some of the discussion last night revolved around whether or not, if true, this act would necessarily be sexual. In our culture it's hard not to read it that way, but it's possible that in other cultures, this may not be so. For example in some cultures today it is the norm to walk around with genitals exposed.

Against this backdrop, the closing segment of The Story of Ruth is particularly interesting. Given it was made in 1960, it's no surprise that it doesn't offer the euphemistic interpretation, but even more surprising is that rather than playing it entirely literally, any hint of sexual behaviour is purged. So, in fact, Ruth doesn't even lie down, or touch his garment. Instead they sit together very briefly before Boaz sends he on her way.In the closing sequence, this episode is referred to again, and it is this, rather than issues of inheritance, which settles the issue of who will marry Ruth, Boaz or Tob (the closer kinsman). As part of his wedding speech Tob gives Ruth the chance to speak. Whilst she vocalises her agreement to the marriage she also declares that she doesn't love Tob, and in the spirit of "truthfulness" tells him that he should know that she "sought out Boaz on the threshing room floor".

Tob takes this as evidence that she has been unfaithful, and calls the wedding off leaving Boaz to claim her hand in marriage before explaining to the elders that "nothing passed between us on that night except spoken words of love". This is all very interesting, both in terms of what it says about the sexual standards of America in 1960, and about the way euphemism is treated.

Firstly, putting the feet euphemism aside, the film clearly considers it's heroine too chaste to have her lie down with a man. Societies standards may have been based on the Bible, but at that stage they had clearly advanced such that the implicitly commended behaviour of its heroines was still not good enough.The second point is more interesting. In saying "I sought out Boaz" and nothing more, Ruth's deliberate ambiguity acts as a kind of counter euphemism. Certainly Tob takes her phrase euphemistically (as an admission of an inappropriate act that compromises their proposed marriage) whereas the truth is that the phrase should be taken literally. Ruth use of this phrase seems to be to deliberately send out the wrong message as a last ditch attempt to marry Boaz. This contrasts strongly with the biblical account whereby the original may have suggested (what we would consider?) a sexual act, but then introduces a euphemism to cover up that particular meaning, leaving readers today to understand the description literally.

Two short additional point of interest. When Boaz seeks to clear things up with the elders his insistence that "nothing passed between us" is somewhat economical with the truth, because Ruth and Boaz did kiss at that point. Secondly, I can't help wondering when watching this scene what Tob's reaction would have been to this final revelation. Did he feel tricked, or was he still glad to have let Boaz marry Ruth?

Story of Ruth - Scene Guide

I reviewed Henry Koster's 1960 film The Story of Ruth last week, and, as usual wanted to follow it up with some scene analysis.

[extra-biblical episodes]
Death of Kilion and Elimelech - (Ruth 1:1-5)
[extra-biblical episode]
Mahlon dies - (Ruth 1:5)
Orpah returns Ruth stays - (Ruth 1:6-18)
[extra-biblical episode]
Return to Bethlehem - (Ruth 1:19-22)
Ruth Gleans Boaz's field - (Ruth 2:1-23)
[extra-biblical episodes]
Ruth and Boaz at the Threshing Floor - (Ruth 3:1-18)
[extra-biblical episode]
Boaz buys off his kinsman - (Ruth 4:1-8)
Ruth marries Boaz - (Ruth 4:9-13)
Genealogy - (Ruth 4:17-22)

Notes
The film's runtime is just over 2 hours, and it's interesting how the biblical material is spread over those 130 minutes. The first thing to note is that the halfway point of the film occurs before Naomi even gets to return to Nazareth. So, as is often the case with biblical films, the film is particularly interested to set up the background story and the characters. As I noted in my review the film is particularly interested in the character of Mahlon, and the role he has in revealing his God to Ruth.

Because the book of Ruth is 4 chapters, it's all too easy to divide up a two hour film into four sections and see how the map to one another. So 90 minutes through lands in the middle of Ruth and Boaz's greatly embellished courtship (middle of chapter 2), and the two hour mark arrives whilst Ruth and Boaz are still at the threshing room floor. The action packed last ten or so minutes wraps up the end of chapter 3, and deals with chapter 4, which is admittedly fairly brief.

The appearance of an mystery figure who may simply be a holy prophet, or may be just an angel is imported from a number of other biblical stories, in particular the prediction of Abraham's son (Genesis 18), Jacob wrestling (32), Gideon's call (Judges 6), prediction of Samson's birth (Judges 13). The latter two examples are fairly contemporary with the story of Ruth, and so such an import is not so far fetched. The first two examples it is unclear exactly whether the person(s) in question are men angels or even God himself.

The famous scene where Ruth decides to stay with Naomi was a little weak. Orpah offered very little resistance (despite the fact she had been an established part of the family for quite some time), and Naomi doesn't seem to try too hard to dissuade Ruth from joining her (despite her previous antagonism).

Likewise the scene of Ruth and Boaz at the threshing room floor was very restrained. The biblical account clearly has Ruth lying somewhere in the vicinity of Boaz. If taken literally "at his feet" seems fairly subservient (and is she pointing in the same direction as Boaz, or at 90^o)? Some scholars, however, have suggested that feet is a euphemism for male genitals.

The American film industry was still under the Hays Production Code at the time so that, at least, would have been far too racy for them to show. However, the film uses subtle distinctions here to explain why Tob (the closer kinsman) relinquishes his claim, but also is able to stress that Ruth is still upright and that therefore Boaz has not compromised himself.

The Story of Ruth - Review

Many scholars see Ruth as a relatively late addition to the Hebrew bible, brought in (along with Jonah) around the time of Ezra either to balance, or directly rebuke the rise of anti-gentile sentiment amongst the Israelites. Interestingly then, Henry Koster's 1960 film The Story of Ruth could be argued to be fulfilling the same function in mid-twentieth century America.

In many ways Koster's film is a rebuff to DeMile's The Ten Commandments. There, DeMille pitched the Israelites as proto-Americans who God delivered from the dictator led Egyptians in a prefiguring of the cold war. Norman Corwin's script frequently inserts references to the Israelite laws regarding care for aliens as if throwing out the challenge to an increasingly paranoid America. If the US wanted to see itself as the new Israel, then it had better start acting like it.

One of the by-products of McCarthyism was that many screen writers with leftist sympathies had to leave Hollywood and head for pastures new. Naomi's return to Bethlehem also perhaps mirrors the return home of a number of writers as a decade of paranoia and suspicion subsided.

The other contribution The Story of Ruth has to make is it's midrashic extrapolation of the biblical text. The book of Ruth is just four short chapters long, and some of the most pivotal figures are dead almost before the story has begun. Naomi and Ruth's husbands, Elimelech and Mahlon, make unusual yet significant decisions Elimelech moves his family to a foreign land, and Mahlon takes a foreign wife.

The Story of Ruth takes its time over this pre-story, at least as far as Mahlon is concerned. Of all the figures in the film, he is the one who is the most readily identifiable with a biblical epic archetype. Whilst his character is far more fleshed out than in the scriptures, he is certainly far simpler than Boaz turns out to be. On the one hand, Mahlon is good, upright and moral, particular in contrast to the child sacrificing Moabites he lives amongst. But come the odd bit of injustice, he is perfectly willing to fight with a sword, and set fire to a vast set in order to make his escape.

The focus of these early scenes is Ruth, and her metamorphosis from a idol worshipping pagan to a God fearing one. Indoctrinated from childhood, it is only when she meets with someone from another faith that she questions her own. It turns out that she was good at heart all along. All of which raises two questions – why if such good people existed in non-Israelite tribes were those tribes so indiscriminately slaughtered on occasion. Secondly, if that situation was the case then, it surely must have something to say about those pockets of contemporary Christianity which see all members of other religions as destined for damnation.

Once Ruth's transformation is complete, however, she gradually becomes less of the focus, and Naomi and Boaz move to centre stage. The two are not on good terms. Boaz is much changed from his youth, and torn between politics, the law and soon his love for Ruth. In contrast to the biblical accounts Boaz is brutish with Ruth when he first meets her and remains distant for some time. This is contrasted with the reaction of his kinsman, Tob, who's first meeting with Ruth results in him forsaking opportunities to claim property, and being overly helpful to Ruth and her mother-in-law.

Portraying these two male leads in such a fashion allows the film to try and negotiate some of the strangest customs mentioned in the bible. The gleaning laws have been preserved in the text of Leviticus (23:22), but what exactly the story was with the exchange of the sandal and the subtleties of the inheritance laws are far less clear. Some of these are brought to prominence others sidelined. Indeed it could be argued that Tob refusing the wealth Boaz offers him demonstrates that his motives are the very opposite of his biblical counterpart.

In the end, however, Tob's attitude to women is that which would have been standard in biblical times – they were seen as property. Whilst Tob's last gasp change of heart is muddled and unconvincing, it does highlight that Boaz actually loves her. In fact, even in the bible that appears to be the case. The film dilutes this observation, however, by portraying the norm as marriage for love rather than possession / survival. It is fairly likely that the person Ruth would have loved the most would have been Naomi.

The film also touches on the role of both Naomi and Ruth in the ancestry of King David. It cleverly gets around the book's inserting a narrator by inserting an angel / holy man / prophet into a couple of scenes. He not only predicts their role in David's line, but also that of one "who some say will be the messiah". The phrasing is sufficiently ambiguous to avoid offending either Christians or Jews. Biblical scholars, however, cannot fail to spot the anachronism of talking about a messiah long before anyone in Israel had any concept of what one might be.

The greatest weakness of The Story of Ruth, however, is that it is twenty minutes too long. There is much unnecessary material inserted into the story when really the film should be wrapping up. A sub-plot concerning two Moabite soldiers trying to track Ruth down, and their attempt to stir up trouble for her with the townsfolk is muddled, cheesy and banal. Whilst it serves to deepen Boaz's complexity a little, overall it detracts from much of the good work elsewhere. Likewise Mahlon's rescue scene seems to have been added largely to increase the entertainment factor, which studio exces may have been concerned about given the absence of orgy scenes and scantily clad women.

Without those two excesses the film would have been brave indeed. Without battle scenes and overly demonstrative love affairs typical of epic films of the period, the film is able to take a far more serious look at some of the real issues behind the story. An early miracle makes it clear that this is a film that recognises God in all that will go on, but that will be concentrating on the other issues that surround this unusual story.

One More Film About Ruth

On Tuesday I looked at the meagre selection of films about Ruth. There is one extra "film" that I didn't cover then since it is only 15 minutes long, but given the poor selection I thought it would be worth covering. The film is called Ruth, a Faithful Woman, and it is part of the Living Bible series of films. (I reviewed Gideon, the Liberator last month. It was created by the same team that made Gideon and the rest of this Hebrew Bible series - written by Betty Luerssen and directed by Edward Dew.

The film like most in the series doesn't really attempt to offer much interpretation to the events that it depicts. There is the odd explanatory note by the narrator, such as when Boaz and his close relative sit down to discuss their field, but these films otherwise play the stories with a fairly straight bat. Obviously every film version of a written text offers some interpretation, nevertheless some do this more than others. (For what it's worth the most unusual aspect of this scene where the closer kinsman gives Boaz his sandal is pictured below). The intended audience of these films was probably Sunday School children who had little or no knowledge of these stories, and by that standard they are fairly effective.

That would also explain the only glaring omission from the story - the episode where Ruth "sleeps at the feet" of Boaz. Many scholars consider this to be a euphemism, and I suppose that even taken literally it is hardly the kind of thing a Sunday School teacher wants to encourage her class to do. It's a shame though that of only four films about Ruth, half of them are for children, and one is so old that the emotional/relational/sexual implications of this scene are unexplored. Underneath the thick layers of cultural practice there is an interesting story, but few biblical stories are so encased in their times that they remain so impenetrable to all but the most scholarly.

Anyway, here is the scene guide:

Intro - the Women leave Moab (Ruth 1:1-5)
Orpah returns, Ruth stays (Ruth 1:18)
Naomi arrives in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19-22)
Ruth Meets Boaz - (Ruth 2:1-18)
Ruth tells Naomi about Boaz - (Ruth 2:19-23)
Ruth and Boaz meet at night - (Ruth 3:9-12,15)
Ruth reports back to Naomi - (Ruth 3:16-18)
Boaz and the Kinsman Redeemer - (Ruth 4:1-12)
Ruth's Ancestors - (Ruth 4:13-22)

The Story of Ruth comes to DVD

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago how several Hebrew Bible films have been released on DVD in the run up to Easter. In particular, the boxed set of both Ten Commandments films marking the latter film's 50th Anniversary, and David and Bathsheba (1951). (I should really get one of those Amazon commission deals set up!). There are details about the DVD at DVDBeaver including some nice screen shots of the film. There are, however, few online reviews of the film, other than "customer reviews" the only review of any depth that seems to be around is the original New York Times review from 1960.

The Story of Ruth is another Old Testament Film that I have never seen. It is also quite surprising that although there have been numerous films about Esther this is the only feature length film that I am aware of that is directly about Ruth. There is half hour claymation film Ruth (right) from the 1994 "Testament" series. This series covered nine biblical stories in a range of different animation styles from plasticine / claymation through to more traditional hand drawn animation. It was a collaboration between Russian and Welsh animators. The other entries in the series were: Creation/The Flood, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Saul, Elijah, Daniel, and Jonah. All 9 were fairly standard re-tellings of the story, which never captured much excitement. That said the animation was superb and in many cases, particularly Ruth the result was quite moving.

The only other film I know of which has examined this material is Amos Gitai's 1992 film Golem, l'esprit de l'exil (Golem, Spirit of the Exile) which makes the story into a modern day allegory about the Jewish mythical creature who personifies exile, with Ruth, Orpah and Naomi living in 1990s Paris. I'm only familiar with Gitai's Esther, but I've found a brief review of the film, and a pre-beard Peter Chattaway briefly mentions both Ruth films at the end of this page at Canadian Christianity and discusses it a bit more here.

UPDATE: Another film about Ruth is the 1958 films Ruth: A Faithful Woman which I've now reviewed