The Queen of Sheba and Solomon in Three Thousand Years of Longing

I've been so busy recently that I've not had a chance to do a blog post yet, but, given its recent release, I thought it would be remiss of me not to say, at least, something about Three Thousand Years of Longing which is on the tail end of it's theatrical run.

The film stars Tilda Swinton as  Alithea, a narratologist, and Idris Elba as a Djinn/Genie who escapes from a bottle she buys in the grand bazaar in Istanbul. Elba's Djinn has been trapped for 3000 years – with only occasional moments out in the open – for 3000 years and is desperate to escape. Alithea however, as a professional in this field, is not only wary of making her three choices, due to the string of cautionary tales which form a cornerstone of her expertise, but also wise  to the opportunity to explore the kind of first-hand information about her specialism which is hard to come by.

And so the two talk, at length. Indeed, while the trailers and pre-release hype for the movie have focused on the special effects and the fantasy CGI, the story itself is essentially an extended dialogue, just with impressive-looking backdrops and flashbacks.

One of the earliest flashbacks goes right back to the days of King Solomon, or, more to the point, the days of the Queen of Sheba (played here by Aamito Lagum). It is she, rather than he, that is the focus here. Both the Djinn and Solomon are in love with her but Solomon is able to use his magical musical skills (he's shown playing a fanciful instrument that accompanies Solomon) to win her over and having done so it is he that is the first to trap the Djinn in the bottle.

The segment – which is only brief – is an interesting mix of the passing mention of the couple in the Hebrew Bible, some ancient non-biblical traditions, other traditional mythical stories and modern storytelling. The queen is, herself, part Djinn, but nevertheless ultimately she chooses Solomon, not the Djinn. What's interesting here is the question of who has the upper hand in the relationship is reversed. In the Hebrew Bible, events take place at his court. The queen comes to him and is just one of the many women he is connected to. Here it is the queen that is in the driving seat. Her court, and she has can choose between Solomon & the Djinn – effectively a choice between her two natures, human and Djinn.

I suppose that could be viewed as a feminist take on the story, though as the film unfolds her choice seems more and more to be a bad one. He uses demons to help him pass the queens tests and shows cruelty for his rival for her love by casting him into a bottle and then into the Red Sea. Moreover, the Djinn turns out to be loving, caring and compassionate, as well as looking like Idris Elba.

It's also interesting, then, that to impress Solomon we're told that the queen shaves her legs, and there's a brief shot of (what looked to me like) her incredibly hairy legs – not so much like someone who has run out of Veet, or even like a hairy man's legs, but more like the kind of thick fur that grows on an alpaca's throat. Is this a surrender of her true self to humane/male/western beauty ideals. I'd need to see it again. Those interested in more details might like to read Peter Chattaway's fairly long long write up at his substack.

I came away from the film quite disappointed though. This may just be down to false expectations – it was a great, enticing, trailer, but it rather mis-sold what the film was about. The CGI work was impressive, but being mainly used in narrated scenes it felt strangely limp. I think it was that the sound was largely non-diegetic, and Alithea never enters into those worlds, so they felt almost hermetically sealed off. He tells what should be incredibly exciting stories, in a dull, almost disinterested, fashion.

This is compounded by the way the actors deliver their lines. Elba speaks softly, there's care and compassion, but never much passion, he seems strangely inert and the accent he adopts is kind of distracting too. it's too forced. Swinton's accent is no better. Again, perhaps this is just my expectations, but she adopts the kind of thick Lancashire accent, that's usually encountered in a Wallace and Gromit film. It should be perfectly valid, and perhaps this just a reflection of my own prejudice, but it just took me right out of the film.

All of which feels like a shame because I did enjoy it as well. It is, at the very least, highly original, and the CGI is very good. And there are few quite films about friendship, and love that revolve around two great actors talking. And it's not like I don't have a penchant for films where the emotion is turned right down. Somehow, though, the heart is missing and so like the Queen herself, I'm more taken by Solomon's story than the Djinn's.

Solomon and Sheba (1959) - part 3 - Conflicting Theology

This is the second in a series of posts looking at the 1959 epic Solomon and Sheba. You can read them all here.

The last post in this series ended with me talking about the gulf in Solomon and Sheba between the god that Israel believes itself to be following and the god that is depicted by the film itself, so I want to explore this now. I should start by pointing out that these observations are based on the portrayal in the film itself, rather than how things may or may not be in the Bible. The film takes a very limited amount of text and makes up a almost three hours' worth of story from it, so most of what we find is invention.

In his book on the film's director, King Vidor, Durgnat proposes that

As with others in the cycle [of biblical epics], the film's theology splices an Old Testament God (who speaks softly but carries a big lightning bolt and is open to a harsh bargain) onto a democratic God ("who teaches that all men are equal and none are slaves").⁶

Whilst Durgnat's analysis is correct as far as it goes, it does not quite get to the heart of the issue because the two 'gods' are not so much spliced together as in conflict. The god revealed through the subjective beliefs of the Israelites and others in the film, is markedly different from the film's more objective portrayals of God through his words and actions.

As noted last time, Israel is portrayed as a progressive nation. It believes in some form of democracy, the rule of law, that "all men are equal and none are slaves" and is strongly in favour of peace. And it believes these things are based on the "wisdom of God" and that Israel is sustained by "the grace of God", a god who is "called the all-knowing, the compassionate".

Of course these are subjective beliefs, even including those of David who has received a "vision from God". In common with many biblical epics however the viewer is given more objective evidence as to the character of God.

The first comes immediately following the "yearly feast of Rha-Gon" (orgy). Abishag recognises that Solomon has incurred the wrath of God goes to the temple to intercede for Solomon, ultimately offering that "if it be thy will to punish him, visit it upon me in his stead." This is immediately followed by lightning striking both the site of the Sheban celebration and the Hebrew temple, so fiercely that Abishag is killed by falling masonry. Sheba's adviser implies "it was nothing more than a coincidence", ("It was nothing more than a sudden storm. It is not the first time lightning has dealt death, nor will it be the last"), but the clear implication is that the storm is an act of God. Solomon's angry questioning "why did you not strike me?" summarises not just the audience's reaction, but also perhaps exposes Solomon's realisation that the God he follows does not tally with the benevolent deity he previously imagined he worshipped.

Shortly after the death of Abishag we are given a second, more objective and direct, insight into the real God of Israel, only this time by his spoken word, rather than his actions. The leaders of the twelve tribes come and confront Solomon about the dangerous path he is taking and reject him. The viewer is primed to side with their opinion and interpret Solomon's path and diverging from God's will. When they leave, Solomon is left alone to reflect and he mutters to himself assorted verses from the book of Ecclesiastes (10:6, 1:9, 6:12, 1:2; circa 99 mins). When the scene ends, the mood changes abruptly, as the calm of night is replaced with the harsh reality of day and a montage of images signifying God's judgement. There's a series of shots of parched ground, barren trees, tumbleweeds, broken buildings and vultures which pairs with a similar but opposite sequence earlier in the film celebrating Israel's prosperity under Solomon in the period before he met Sheba.

This time however the images are accompanied by the voice of God saying:

"But if ye turn away and forsake my statutes, then I will pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them, and this house which is high shall be an astonishment to everyone that passeth by it..."

These words are taken from 2 Chron. 7:19-22 – the passage where God speaks to Solomon immediately after the dedication of the temple – and are intended as a warning rather than the confirmation of a judgement. Yet whilst these words are those of the God of the Bible, there are two significant differences between their use in Chronicles and how they function in this film.

Firstly, whilst the Solomon of the film's love for Sheba and involvement with her religion are not based directly on the Bible's account of their time together (1 Kings 10), it is consistent with the biblical Solomon's behaviour with other royal women at his court (1 Kings 11). Yet despite such a clear violation of God's warning the God of the Bible does not directly punish Solomon for his many marriages and dalliance with other gods, but delays his punishment until the rule of his son (1 Kings 11:12).

This variation alone would be harsh enough, but, of course, in the film propitiation has already been paid for Solomon's sin. Recognising the judgement that Solomon is bringing on himself, Abishag offers God a deal that he punish her and not him. When God takes the life of Abishag it is a tacit agreement to her terms. The deal that Abishag offered has been refused and both her, the one she loved and her entire nation have paid the price. Not only has Abishag paid with her life but Solomon will also be punished.

The final occasion when God is revealed more objectively occurs at the very end of the film when he speaks out loud to a now converted, repentant and reformed Sheba. On the eve of battle, and in the knowledge that she has played a pivotal role in his suspected downfall, Sheba heads to the temple to intercede for him and his army. There, suspecting that God still wishes to harm Solomon (despite Abishag's sacrifice and his subsequent additional punishment of the entire nation) she attempts to broker a new deal.

God of Israel, thou who art called the all-knowing, the compassionate, look into my heart and hear my prayer. Forgive my sin against thee and thy people. Grant me the life of Solomon and preserve him against his enemies. Do this, and I will return to the land of Sheba and cast down the false gods. And I will build a tabernacle to the glory of thy name, and there shall be no other gods before thee.

Immediately following this scene Solomon is inspired with an idea of how to defeat the Egyptians in the battle and the return of his troops who "rally" to them "by their hundreds", but the film is somewhat ambiguous as to whether this is God's action or mere coincidence. Even Solomon only says "It is as though God had come to me and showed me the way" (emphasis mine) - a simile rather than directly attributing the source of his inspiration to God as his father did at the start of the film. The battle ensues with the Israelite troops reinvigorated. "Solomon's small force dooms the larger army by burnishing its shields until the sun's dazzle lures the charging cavalry into a canyon. The genre's de rigueur miracle thus comes down to human ingenuity and effort. Solomon's cleverly orchestrated idea remains...ambiguous."⁷

Rather than being a revelation in itself, then, Solomon's ambiguous 'miracle' merely only paves the way for a more objective revelation. As the battle draws to a close, Sheba heads to the temple where she is intercepted by a large mob who begin to stone her. In the nick of time a triumphant Solomon arrives with the news of his victory. Several of those present, including Sheba, go into the temple. There Sheba kneels again before the altar – and the architecture of the temple is far more that of a church than that described in detail in the pages of Kings and Chronicles – where she hears God speak out loud his response to her.

Because thou didst call upon my name in thy dark hour, I have heard thee. Return therefore until thine own land and keep the covenant thou didst make with me.

In order to underline his acceptance of this agreement God also performs a miracle, healing Sheba's battered face whilst the Ark of the Covenant glows with his approval. Thus "the film ends with democratic Israel triumphing over absolutist Egypt, monotheism over paganism and duty over the desires of the flesh".⁸ Whilst this is certainly the most benevolent of the three direct revelations it still suggests a certain amount of double dealing on God's part. Moreover it, in effect, portrays God as one who is suppressing female leadership of the Sheban hierarchy and replacing it with a patriarchal model.

The portrayal of gender in this film is significant enough to warrant a post in itself, but for now it's sufficient to note that not only is this film's God not challenging the male-dominated world of the time, he is actively trying to extend its influence. Again, this is a significant development of the Bible which suggest no such modification back in Sheba.

In these three examples we see the way the film portrays God as the dark malevolent force I mentioned in the first post. The Israelites seem unaware of this - Israel has to stand in for the USA after all - but it creates a significant conflict at the heart of the film.

==================
6 - Durgnat, Raymond and Simmon, Scott. "King Vidor, American", (Berkley, University of California Press) 1988, p.311

7 - Durgnat, Raymond and Simmon, Scott. "King Vidor, American", (Berkley, University of California Press) 1988 p.314
8 - Richards, Jeffrey. "Hollywood Ancient Worlds" (London, Continuum: 2008), p.116

Solomon and Sheba (1959) - part 2 - Parallels and Politics

This is the second in a series of posts looking at the 1959 epic Solomon and Sheba. You can read them all here.

In the last post in this series I touched on the way Israel is depicted as believing her God to be far more upright, moral and decent than the way the film actually portrays him. In order to understand this contrast more fully it is necessary to undertake a fuller exploration of the portrayal of Israel in the film. As with many epics of the era the filmmakers attempt to draw parallels between the Hebrew nation and 1950s America.

 This is particularly notable at the start of the film as Adonijah (George Sanders) presumptively declares himself David's successor, only for the king to emerge from his coma just long enough to recommend that Solomon should succeed him instead. As David (Finlay Currie) explains to his, now seething, eldest son, "Above all others, the King must respect and obey the law. In proclaiming yourself, you have violated the law of God and of man". As Forshey observes

"This is more an American ideal than a Hebrew one, and reflects the opinion that the rule of law should not be hereditary. According to this point of view, the will of God requires that the most qualified should rule." ⁴

Yet even this intervention wasn't sufficiently American to satisfy the screenwriters, so Solomon's claim to the throne is boosted by a democratic election, of sorts, by the elders of the twelve tribes. It is they who consent to David's choice of successor, Solomon, in preference to his older brother Adonijah. Whilst Solomon is technically a monarch, his position is very much dependent on the votes from these representatives, thus resolving the inherent tension in portraying a firmly monarchic nation as a forerunner of modern (democratic) United States. Furthermore

"King David's federalistic, melting-pot deathbed speech" has the outgoing monarch insisting "on a 'union' of the tribes 'welded together in an indestructible oneness'. The first equivalence sees two God-inspired democratic nations fighting to free the world from slavery. The second parallels two 'chosen' people formed out of frontier, both loking (sic.) nostalgically back to those origins from present urban corruptions."⁵

Having squeezed ancient Israel into the mould of twentieth century America sufficiently well, the film can then dwell on the most important moral values the two nations supposedly have in common. Thus Israel is frequently portrayed as a champion of progressive values. Their enemies in the surrounding nations deride them for it ("Peace is for women and children") and see their championing of freedom from slavery for all is seen as a critical weakness.

When one of Sheba's advisers tells her about the Israelite's "one god who teaches that all men are equal and none are slaves" she initially dismisses it as "a foolish idea" but then reflects that perhaps she ought not to dismiss this threat so lightly adding "yet... if that idea were to take hold of the people, the Queen of Sheba would soon come crashing down from her throne". "As would all other absolute monarchs" her aide suggests.

For a film that tries so hard to milk the success of 1956's The Ten Commandments (even recruiting one of its leading stars) this conversation seems curiously contradictory. Superficially it almost appears like it is the idea of democracy/freedom for all that is being attacked. However, the word "absolute" is no doubt intended to be pivotal. It acts as a way of highlighting the 'superiority' of the proto-American Israelites over the never-really-depicted Shebans. The Israel of this film is a quasi-democratic theocracy (or at least 'one nation under God') and so, by implication, is not running the risk that everything will "come crashing down" by banishing slavery.

However, this idea of Israel being a place free from slavery is not historically accurate. Far from ending slavery, the Law of Moses legislates for it. Furthermore, it is difficult to find an Israelite monarch whose actions did more to increase and promote slavery - even at the cost of dividing his kingdom after his death - than Solomon. Whilst Solomon's father became king partly because God chose him and anointed him, but also because, eventually, the 12 tribes in some way consented to
him being their leader. In contrast, the reign of Solomon himself seems to have been far more authoritarian.

Nevertheless the Israel of the film is portrayed as anti-slavery which ultimately only serves to highlight the gulf between the god that Israel believes itself to be following and the god that is depicted by the film itself. I will expand on that gulf in the next post in this series in a few weeks.

==================
4 - Forshey, Gerald  E.,  "American  Religious  and  Biblical  Spectaculars"  (Westport,  CT.  Praeger  Press:  1992),  p.78.

5 - Babbington,  Bruce  and  Evans,  Peter  William.  "Biblical  Epics:  Sacred  Narrative  in  the  Hollywood  Cinema",  (Manchester:  Manchester  University  Press)  1993,  p.55.

Solomon and Sheba (1959) - part 1

This is the first in a series of posts looking at the 1959 epic Solomon and Sheba

"At times, a man feels drawn toward the dangers that 
confront him, even at the risk of his own -destruction". 

Strip away all the glitz and glamour of King Vidor's magnificent looking epic and at its heart it's pure film noir - Gilda in gold-sequinned pants starring the Queen of Sheba as the femme fatale. She turns up one day on Solomon's doorstep playing the innocent, but everyone, including Solomon himself, knows she's trouble.

Away from Solomon's lavishly rendered court she conspires with his enemies - the Egyptian Pharaoh and Solomon's waspish half brother Adonijah. Solomon attempts to keep her at arm's length, and when that fails he tries to impress her into thinking he's invulnerable to her charms, but he's drawn towards her "like a moth approaches a flame" and once he falls, he falls hard leaving his whole kingdom exposed.

But then, like a low-grade Vertigo, there's the twist: Sheba falls for her mark and realises that the enemy she was trying to deceive, seduce and destroy means more to her than the traditions she has been raised with and has fought to protect. Now there's going to be trouble for both of them.

Yul Brynner's performance as Solomon is often criticised for being too one-dimensional, but he was never going to simply repeat his performance from The King and I. Instead his passive, subdued portrayal is a classic leaf out of the noir handbook. It's always the female characters who are the more interesting in noir anyway. This is very much the case here as Gina Lollobridgida's Sheba steals every scene she features in. She smoulders, plots and purrs so well that you can easily forget her biblical role was supposed to be almost-intellectual - a head of state of an upwardly mobile country posing tough administrative questions which only the wisdom of Solomon could possibly answer.

Of course Noir's finest films are all built around the stellar female performances. It's why names like Barbara Stanwyck and Lana Turner still hold some cultural resonance whilst Dana Andrews and whatever the bloke from Double Indemnity was called have faded into obscurity. Great as Bogart was he is forever linked with the super-smart Bacall, and whilst Mitchum, Stewart and Alan Ladd all graced the genre, the reason they are more fondly remembered is for their work elsewhere.

With Lollobrigida giving it her all - except the orgy scene where she, rather understandably, seems bored by its banality ("but, Gina dah-ling", you can almost hear the studio rep saying, "it'll draw in the crowds") - it's no surprise that the audience sides with her far more than the stoical Brynner¹. "Wherever she moves Sheba colonises her space, dominating her interlocuters, for instance in the pastoral scene with Solomon, where her positioning in the frame often prioritises her spatially".² Whilst we see both monarchs consulting with their advisors, we are given far more insight into the goings on in her inner circle than we ever are in his, even if we sense he has more to lose.

One of the things that is surprising about Solomon and Sheba is its depiction of the Israelites' god who rather unexpectedly steps up to claim the noirish role of the dark malevolent force conspiring to keep the two lovers apart. In contrast to other Old Testament films it's neither the Sheban religion (with its highly-choreographed, but curiously unerotic, orgies³) nor the Egyptian army (who - in a sequence combining stunning visuals with a total lack of realism - fall, quite literally, for Solomon's battlefield "genius") that are the real problem, but the deity who the Israelites worship, yet fail to understand. Israel believes her God to be far more upright, moral and decent than he is actually shown to be.

In order to understand this contrast more fully it is necessary to undertake a fuller exploration of the portrayal of Israel in the film. So in the next instalment I'll be looking at how, along with many epics of the era, the filmmakers attempt to draw parallels between the Hebrew nation and 1950s America.

===============
1 - One of the more modern skewering I've enjoyed is Alex von Tunzelmann's "The ludicrous Solomon and Sheba (1959) tempted in audiences with the promise of an Old Testament orgy scene, though being 1959 this merely consisted of the Queen of Sheba (Gina Lollobrigida) doing the funky chicken in a gold bikini while her acolytes formed a conga line and then ran off giggling into the undergrowth" - "Reel History: The World According to the Movies" (London, Atlantic: 2015), p.22.
2 - Babbington, Bruce and Evans, Peter William. "Biblical Epics: Sacred Narrative in the Hollywood Cinema", (Manchester: Manchester University Press) 1993, p.67
3 - Fraser employs the phrase "curious balletic orgy" which sums up the use of movement and space and the ineffectiveness of the eroticism nicely. "The Hollywood History of the World", MacDonald Fraser, George, (London, Harvill Press: 1996), p.26

La Sacra Bibbia/After Six Days (1920)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David, a Young Hero and David, A King of Israel (1958)

The The Living Bible series tends to stick very rigidly to the biblical text and the three episodes that feature David are no exception, so I've not got a huge amount of comments on these films. I say "three" because the elderly David does appear at the start of the episode Solomon, A Man of Wisdom. So anyway, here's more of a scene guide to these episodes (something I wish I'd kept closer tags on as I was writing up the others in this series). N.B. Where an incident occurs in both Samuel-Kings and in Chronicles I've referenced if from Samuel-Kings.

David, A Young Hero
David playing the harp whilst shepherding (Psalm 23)
Anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13)
David plays for Saul (1 Sam 16:14-23)
David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)
Saul throws a spear at David (1 Sam 18:10-17)
Jonathan warns David using arrows (1 Sam 20)

Given my post a few days ago about Saul's mental health problems the one moment of this production that really stood out was the scene where David is brought in to play his harp. It's interesting that the narrator seems to provide both a natural description of the problem as well as providing a supernatural explanation. Initially Saul's problem is described as "black moods of despair" - which is notable not least because we have not been shown Saul's rejection by God. Moments later, though, the cause of Saul's problem is put down to evil spirits.

Given the film's low budget it does a good job of making an effective Goliath. By limiting the two competitors to only one shot in which they both appear some of the awkwardness about Goliath's relative size is effectively dealt with, and whilst the sound effects on Goliath's voice may lack sophistication they are certainly effective. I also like that David is clearly a late teenager/young man here rather than a young teenager/boy.

The film does end at a curious point which very much underlines the fact that this is the first instalment of a two-parter. Jonathan confirms that his father is trying to kill David and so David heads off into "the wilderness". When David returns he will be played by an older actor. Most David films change actors shortly after his felling of Goliath suggesting it is this action that turns him into a man. Here however it is his having to flee Saul and live a life of the run that ages him and matures him.

David, King of Israel
The 400 come to David (1 Sam 22)
Protection of Keilah (1 Sam 23)
David spares Saul's life (1 Sam 24)
David spares Saul's life a 2nd time (1 Sam 26)
Elders make David king (2 Sam 2-5)
The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6)
Covenant with David (2 Sam 7)

It's slightly peculiar that for an episode called David, King of Israel only a third of it (5 minutes) involves David actually being king. Given the series' conservatism it's no surprise that it overlooks the troubles of his reign, not least his affair with Bathsheba and the problems with Absalom.

One other pouint that stood out for me was in the scene where David spares Saul's life for the first time. Whereas most other films tend to depict Saul wearing his coat at the time, here he puts it down on a nearby rock, a rather more plausible scenario in my opinion. That said the robe itself is more like a women's wrap than any kind of robe, and the actor playing Saul clearly seems to struggle to wear whilst giving the impression that he has not noticed a large piece of it is missing.

Solomon, A Man of Wisdom
David announces his successor (1 Kings 1-2)
David passes on his plans for the temple (1 Chr 28-29)
[rest of episode]

This film does go where most other films about David don't however covering the messy situation surrounding his successor. That said the ousted Adonijah seems rather more relaxed about David's pronouncement than the Bible suggests and the two half-brothers shake hands in a manner which in no way suggests that Solomon is about to butcher his rival. Bizarrely the next scene depicts David having sprung up from his death bed and explaining his plans for the temple. It is, to say the least, a rather odd arrangement.

The Kingdom of Israel: Part 2

One of the most interesting things about the Hebrew Bible is the emergence of different voices offering conflicting opinions, sometimes even within the same book. Arguably one of the most divisive issues in this respect seems to be the role of Israel's kingdom in relation to God's will and plan. The solemn warnings by the prophet Samuel at its inauguration take a very negative view of kingship whereas the rules of David and Solomon are idealised even despite their personal faults. By the later period of the kingdom the focus has shifted again. The main issue is no longer whether or not having a king is the right path, the key question is the manner in which the king walks along that path.

This varying status is complicated by the length of time between the events described and their final editing into 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. The length of time covered by these books is roughly around 500 years, even before other questions around authorship and so forth are examined.

Disappointingly, very few biblical films examine the morality of Israelite monarchy as an institution, preferring instead to focus on individual rulers within the Kingdom of Israel and issues surrounding their lives. Indeed the most significant examination of this question occurs not in a Hebrew Bible film, but in one about Jesus; Roberto Rossellini's Il Messia (1975). Rossellini's focus here, as in many of his films, is on power and it's abuse, and so the scene where the elders of Israel persuade Samuel to create a monarchy is pivotal in showing the abuse of power in Israel and how Jesus comes in the opposite spirit. His Messiah is cut from a different cloth.

The potential for the corruption of the monarchy system is illustrated in other ways however, namely the depiction of Saul and his fall from grace. This is particularly well embodied in Orson Welles' portrayal and the inaugural Israelite king in Saul and David. Whilst the quality of the film is poor, Welles' heavy, sweaty body evokes memories of his earlier role as corrupt cop Hank Quinlan in A Touch of Evil (1958). The impression of corruption and decay is only heightened by the cheap and poorly lit throne room set and the generally amateurish feel of the production as a whole.

As might be expected, other films also portray Saul in a harshly negative light. Whilst a modern day therapist might look at the story of Saul and see a man troubled by mental health problems, filmmakers tend to be less specific. One notable example being 2013's miniseries The Bible. There, even in his early days as a hero Saul comes across poorly raising his crown to the sky at his coronation like a victorious sportsmen lifting aloft his new trophy. It's notable as well that in a film packed with actors bearing typicall rugged, American good looks, Saul's face is far less attractive. Indeed, few films demonstrate much empathy for Saul, a tradition that goes all the way back to the early silents David and Goliath (1908), Saul and David (1909), David and Saul (1911) and Death of Saul (1913).

This is quite in contrast, however with the general depiction of his successor, David. The majority of David films introduce us to him before he becomes king, and focus on him as a young man, notably before the trappings of power have corrupted him. This enables the audience to sympathise with him, meaning that, where presented, his later failings are somewhat rendered more understandable.

The most notable exception to this trend is 1951's David and Bathsheba. Whilst the film does encourage sympathy with the king, not least by casting Gregory Peck in the lead role, it's focus is almost entirely on David's latter years. His heroics against Goliath, a time when he was purer and more in touch with his god, are preserved only as a late flashback as David reflects on where it all went wrong. It nicely highlights the recurring, but subtle minority report of Saul/Kings, that power corrupts the ideals of youth.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the story of Solomon who in his youth choses God's wisdom over riches, but ends up pursuing the latter, ultimately bringing his kingdom to the verge of bankruptcy a weakening te tribal confederation to the verge of breakdown. Such a story though is far less appealing and so films have tended to focus on the more glamourous aspects of Solomon's reign, most notably the visit of the Queen of Sheba and the implied romance in La Reine de Saba (1913), Solomon and Sheba (1959) and The Bible Collection: Solomon (1997). Whilst the damage that is done by Solomon's pursuit of wives, concubines and the political power this affords him is included in certain films, such as 1997's Solomon, generally these aspects are amongst the less memorable moments of the films.

It would be Solomon's son however who oversaw the disintegration of the kingdom of Israel, but none of the major productions treat it as anything other than a contextual footnote on the narrative arc of another story. The divided kingdom features, primarily in the handful of films about Elijah - Athaliah, Queen of Judah (1910), Sins of Jezebel (1953), Living Bible: Elijah a Fearless Prophet (1958) and Testament: Elijah (1996) - but is perhaps best captured by the 1936 film Green Pastures where instead of portraying one particular king, it condenses them all into a single king who has set his face against God and persecuted the generic prophet who speaks out against him.

And it is through the lens of the prophets that cinema witnesses the fall of Judah (although the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel is absent in a Hollywood history of the world), most notably the story of Jeremiah, although perhaps also the films about Judith (see Judith, film). Two major productions tell the story of Jeremiah - the fifth 'hour' of the The Bible miniseries (2013) and the 1998 biopic Jeremiah. Whilst both have their faults, not least the earlier film's mawkish love story, they also capture the chasm that has gradually appeared between the monarchy and leadership of the Jewish nation, and their supposed God. The warnings of Samuel have come to pass and Israel is about to be stripped of her monarchy forever. The two films chronicling the last days of Judah focus not on the waning monarchy, but of the rising prophets. The 1998 film is far more concerned with the ins and outs of Jeremiah's life, his struggles with God, than on the inner workings of the seat of power. Part of that focus is also on the more depressive aspects of Jeremiah's personality as manifest in his walk with God, this creating a fascinating contrast with the mental health problems of Saul. Whilst the cinematic corpus on the kingdom of Israel shows humans remaining flawed the pendulum has swung from kings to prophets, and Samuel's initial warnings about the corruption of royal power have been amply demonstrated.

The Kingdom of Israel: Part 1

I'm trying to write a few comments on the key films about the Kingdom of Israel. In some ways it's fewer films than one might think - the kingdom starts with Saul, splits three kings later, and both the separate parts peter out. In terms of films there are very few films that pick the story up after the end of Solomon's rule. But on the other hand there have been a lot of films about David. Not as many as Moses and Jesus, but certainly too many to cover all of in detail in a briefing overview like this.

I think I'll take them in chronological order as that allows me to treat the separate parts of the story individually and where one production covers more than one part of the story (such as this year's The Bible) I can deal with the specific parts as they come up. Well I'll try it like that and see where it gets me.

The Start of the New Kingdom

Living Bible: Samuel, A Dedicated Man (1958), Il Messia (1975), One Night With the King (2006), The Bible (2013)

The Rise of David

David and Goliath (1908), Saul and David (1909), David and Saul (1911), Death of Saul (1913), Living Bible: David, A Young Hero (1958), David and Goliath (1960), Saul and David (1968), Story of David (1976), Greatest Heroes of the Bible: David and Goliath (1978), King David (1985), Testament: David and Saul (1996), Kings (2009), The Bible (2013).

David the King

David and Bathsheba (1951), Living Bible: David, A King of Israel (1958), Story of David (1976), King David (1985), The Bible Collection: David (1997), The Bible (2013).

Solomon the King

La Reine de Saba (1913), Living Bible: Solomon, A Man of Wisdom (1958), Solomon and Sheba (1959), Greatest Heroes of the Bible: Judgement of Solomon (1978), The Bible Collection: Solomon (1997).

The Divided Kingdom

Athaliah, Queen of Judah (1910), Green Pastures (1936), Sins of Jezebel (1953), Living Christ Series (1951), Living Bible: Elijah a Fearless Prophet (1958), Testament: Elijah (1996), Testament: Jonah (1996)

The Fall of Judah

Judith of Bethulia (1913), The Bible Collection: Jeremiah (1998), The Bible (2013)

I'm aware that I've left some out, not least the various other Judith films I've discussed recently, various peplum Goliath films, a few other silents, the odd cartoon, and a few very amateur projects. Nevertheless, this isn't a bad list, and I suspect I'll skip a few on this list for the sake of being something of significance about the others. Still, that's about 30 depending on whether you count different episodes of things like The Living Bible (1958) and The Bible (2013) separately, or just as one series together.

Song of Songs in Radio and Film

BBC Radio 4 has been broadcasting readings from Song of Songs juxtaposed with bits from Lamentations. The idea is to combine the most beautiful and erotic parts of the Biblical imagery with some of the most violent. I heard five minutes of it in the car at the weekend - somehow managing to catch what is probably the rudest part of Song of Songs - but liked the premise and the execution, and I'm hoping to listen to the rest soon via iPlayer.

Coincidentally around the same time that I heard about this production I also heard about a film called Song of Songs (2005) starring Natalie Press (Bleak House, Red Road). It's rated very poorly on IMDb (4.5!) though The Observer's Philip French and The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw both seemed to like it. 2005's Edinburgh Film Festival catalogue described it like this:

Devoutly religious Ruth returns from Israel to care for her dying mother, but when she tries to bring her estranged brother David back into the fold, in accordance with her mother's wishes, the result is a startling journey into the darkest realms of sexual obsession: a forbidden game under the guise of religious law. Dark, ambiguous and distinctly adult, this study of belief and desire, set in the cloistered world of London's Orthodox Jewish community, thoughtfully explores the links between faith and violence, denial and longing.

Whilst words such as "dark" and "intense" seem to pop up in reviews of that film another film that takes a decent look at the book is at the other end of the scale. Keeping Mum, also released in 2005, is a comedy starring Rowan Atkinson and Dame Maggie Smith. It doesn't fare brilliantly at IMDb either (6.8), but I'm told by my friend (@lizzystevey) that it "has some beautiful scenes looking at the Song of Songs." I never saw it when it first came out, though was sorely tempted by the promise of Rowan Atkinson doing one of the things he does best - playing a vicar. I've ordered both films and may report back on them in due course.

Neither of these is a straight take on Song of Songs, but then that's partly because the poetic books don't really lend themselves to a medim such as film that is dominated by narrative. What has happened is that films about Solomon have included little excerpts here and there, usually around the time the Queen of Sheba turns up (as in The Bible Collection's brief quotation). It's been a while since I saw Solomon and Sheba so I can't comment on how much Song of Songs is included in there, but I'm pretty sure it will be cited somewhere amongst the cheesy Hollywood blather. There were at least 2 silent films about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but the 1921 Fox film is now lost, and I suspect that my review of Pathé's 1913 La Reine de Saba (Queen of Sheba) would have mentioned it if Song of Songs had been cited in the intertitles.

Reel History on Solomon and Sheba

The ever-amusing Alex von Tunzelmann has written up her latest history report card for a Bible film and this time its 1959's Solomon and Sheba starring Gina Lollobrigida and Yul Brynner (pictured above) that she has in her sights.

There have only been a handful of films about Solomon, and this is easily the most well known, even if, as von Tunzelmann points out, it's a bit of a disaster, representing the worst excesses of the 50s biblical epics, whilst leaving little to appreciate aside from Gina Lollobrigida's skimpy outfits. That said, its been such a long time since my one and only viewing that I may well have missed one or two notable aspects.

Incidentally, in searching for a picture to accompany this post, I stumbled across Brooklyn Babylon - a modernised take on the story from 2001.

Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the tip off on this one.

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.

Christmas Bible Related Films and Programmes on UK TV

One thing I like to do at Christmas and Easter is have a look through the TV listings and see what programmes/films of interest will be showing over the festive period. I thought, then, that I'd post some of the highlights on terrestrial TV over here. Apologies to readers outside the UK, but I can't really work my way through the listings for every country. (I did note, however, that in the US Jesus of Nazareth is showing on the History Channel, as well as The Passion – Religion and the Movies).

Bruce Almighty - 21st Dec. 8pm - BBC1
A surprisingly deep film considering it stars Jim Carrey, managing to look at a host of issues from unanswered prayer to theodicy. Morgan Freeman's performance as God steals the show and there is at least one brief audio-visual reference to DeMille's The Ten Commandments.

God Gave Rock and Roll to You - 23rd Dec. 6:30pm – Ch4
Documentary with Robert Beckford looking at the relationship between music and religion. I guess this is the music equivalent of The Passion: Films, Faith and Fury. Interestingly, that programme was originally scheduled for Christmas last year, but got moved to Easter as because that was a more religious time, which suggests something has changed at Channel 4.

The Lost Gospel of Judas – 23rd Dec. 8:30pm – Ch4
Documentary looking at the lost gospel of Judas, and trying to determine whether it is real or fake.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 24th Dec. 11:25 am
The animated version of the film which I was obsessed by as a kid (having discovered it on holiday). It's not as flashy as the recent feature film, nor as faithful as the BBC TV version from the late 80s, but it still holds up quite well, although the US accents are a bit strange for a story set in 40s Britain.

CS Lewis: Beyond Narnia - 24th Dec. 11:50am
Documentary-drama looking at the life of the great writer. It's written by Norman Stone who wrote and directed the 1985 version of Shadowlands

Solomon and Sheba - 24th Dec. 12:45pm
Yul Brynner stars as King Solomon, a role he took on after the untimely death of original star Tyronne Power who can still be seen in some of the distant shots. The story is based, of course, on 1 Kings 10:1-13, and so director King Vidor and his writer add plenty of padding to make those thirteen verses stretch for the 135 minutes run time. Solomon and Sheba was one of the first films to use Super Technirama 70. There's an interesting article at the Widescreen Museum discussing this and Disney's Sleeping Beauty.

Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat - 24th Dec. 3:15pm
Donny Osmond takes the title role in this fairly terrible rendition of Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Tim Rice's musical. It's as tacky as you like even starring Joan Collins and Christopher Biggins to turn up the camp factor.

The Secret Family of Jesus - 25th Dec. 8:00pm
Another documentary featuring Robert Beckford about the most talked about religious issue this year – that raised by the Da Vinci Code. It's somewhat sensationally advertised, but surely with a 2 hours runtime it will bring more balance than the book and the film, and hopefully it will reflect the scholarly consensus.

The Magic of Jesus - 26th Dec. 12:40am
Dirty Tricks magicans Barry and Stuart reproduce some of Jesus's miracles. Hardly new territory (magicians have claimed to be able to do various miracles for years), but if they manage to get killed and rise from the dead I'll be seriously impressed.

The Secret Life of Brian - 1st Jan 8:00 pm
Channel 4 are devoting an entire evening to the Pythons. The evening kicks off with this documentary looking at the controversy surrounding the film. I hope they show the complete footage of the TV debate between two of the Python's and a bishop and another religious representative. I don't think it will, but hopefully there will be some interesting footage that I've not seen before.

Monty Python's Life of Brian - 1st Jan 9:00 pm
A film that needs no introduction, but it is part of an evening on the Pythons. The evening continues after this film with the documentary "What the Pythons Did Next".

Honourable Mentions
There's so much religious-related TV this year that I can't discuss everything, so here are a few more programmes of lesser relevance.

23rd, 9:25 am ITV1 - The Way we Worshipped Christmas Special
23rd, 11:40 pm Ch4 - Nuns on the Run (Film)
24th, 3:15 pm BBC2 – A Nuns Story (Film)
24th, 7:35 pm Ch4 – AFI 100 Years, 100 Cheers
25th/1st Jan 9:30 pm BBC1 – Vicar of Dibley
28th, 10:50pm BBC1 – Film 2006: Films of the Year

I'm fairly impressed with this list of programmes / films. Last year there was next to nothing. This time there are a number of interesting documentaries, a couple of Christian related films, and one proper golden-era biblical epic, albeit based on a story that would be unknown to many outside of the church and biblical studies departments. (It almost makes me wonder if it was a coincidence!). It's interesting to see Channel 4 leading the way as well. 10 years ago the majority of religious programming would have been on the BBC, but now their offerings are unimaginative low budget affairs whilst Channel 4 is producing new, engaging documentaries that should attract a far wider audience. It will be interesting to see how they do in terms of quality and ratings.

Solomon (1997) Scene Analysis

I reviewed Roger Young's Solomon (1997) last week, so here is the corresponding scene analysis. The film is a fairly comprehensive treatment as it starts before Solomon becomes King (1 Kings 1), and continues on to after his death and the reign of his successor. Since only Solomon's birth is mentioned in 2 Samuel, film covers pretty much all of the historical accounts about Solomon. It also interweaves the narrative of his life with quotes from the three books of wisdom associated with him - Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.

Part 1
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah plans to become king - (1 Ki 1:5-8)
Abishag selected - (1 Ki 1:1-4)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Bathsheba informs David - (1 Ki 1:9-35)
Solomon anointed king - (1 Ki 1:38-53)
David crowns Solomon - (1 Ki 2:1-9, 1Ch 28:1-21)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Death of David - (1 Ki 2:10-12)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Adonijah and Abishag - (1 Ki 2:13-22)
Deaths of Adonijah - (1 Ki 2:23-25)
Joab Takes sanctuary - (1 Ki 2:28-34)
Solomon asks for Wisdom - (1 Ki 3:4-15)
[10 years later]
Solomon sets up tribes - (1 Ki 4:7)
Solomon marries Pharoah's daughter - (1 Ki 3:1)
Solomon's many wives - (1 Ki 11:1)
2 women and a baby - (1 Ki 3:16-28)

Part 2
Solomon builds the temple - (1 Ki 5:1-6:38, 11:28)
Dedication of the temple - (1 Ki 8:1-9)
God appears to Solomon again - (1 Ki 9:1-9)
Queen of Sheba - (1 Ki 10:1-13)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Various proverbs - (Pr 6:6; 30:25, Pr 1:7, Pr 7:2, Pr 22:6, Pr 12:1, Pr 11:12, Pr 12:10, Pr 15:1, Pr 17:14, Pr 17:27-28, Pr 6:16-19)
Sheba's acclamation - (1 Ki 10:6-7)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Song of Solomon - (SoS 1:2)
[extra-biblical episode(s)]
Quotes from Ecclesiates - (Ec 2:8, Ec 1:8-9, Ec 1:13, Ec 1:18, Ec 2:1-26, Ec 3:20, Ec 3:1-22, Ec 8:14-17, Ec 3:11, Ec 6:11, Ec 9:11, Ec 12:1-8)
Solomon's offering to Ashtoreth - (1 Ki 11:1-6)
God rejects Solomon - (1 Ki 11:9-13)
Jeroboam's Rebellion - (1 Ki 11:29-39)
Solomon tries to kill Jeroboam - (1 Ki 11:40)
Solomon's death - (1 Ki 11:41-43)
Israel Rebels Against Rehoboam - (1 Ki 12:1-17)

Notes
As noted above, the screenplay for this film incorporates phrases from three of the books commonly attributed to Solomon. These fall into three self contained sections. The first covering a variety of Proverbs, the second is a single quote from Song of Songs/ Song of Solomon, and the final section is an abridged summary of Ecclesiastes. There are a number of points to make here.

Firstly, is this self containment neat or lazy? On the one hand it certainly was a lot easier to write this scene analysis than it will be to write one for Peter and Paul. One the other hand it seems unlikely that Solomon would deliver these proverbs in the public, but ad hoc manner he does here.

This links nicely to my second point - what does this film consider the relationship between the finished books we have and the king who is routinely associated with them? Most scholars would consider it unlikely that he was the author of the final versions of these books as we have them, but would consider them to be at least derived from him in some way. The film cleverly lands in fairly neutral territory in this regard. These works have clearly been associated with Solomon, and he delivers them in semi-formal fashion. Yet, at the same time, they are far from being the finished product. The words used resemble the biblical text closely enough to suggest that perhaps someone wrote them down at a later stage, or that Solomon himself had them memorised and was able to recite them to a scribe/write them down himself at a later date.

Thirdly, the abridged summary of Ecclesiastes is very neat, and incorporates much of the book, particularly its order and most famous passages, and flows very smoothly. Ben Cross's acting here also makes this scene very effectively. It would certainly form a nice video clip for a bible study group looking at Ecclesiastes. The same could be said for the passage from Song of Songs.

Finally, whilst the film does very well at depicting Solomon's fall from grace as a gradual process, there is no doubt that the break-up with the Queen of Sheba is displayed as the most significant. It is this event that prompts the words of Ecclesiastes, and sees a significant rift occur between him and his council. This is underlined by the length of time given to this episode (which takes just one chapter in the bible).

It is always telling with a biblical film how they distribute their screen time. The comparison is made simpler by films such as these which divide into two parts. The material depicted here covers approximately twelve chapters from 1 Kings. Yet the halfway point occurs after only the first few chapters. The chapters where Solomon builds the temple are passed over fairly swiftly, before the film then spends quite some time on the romance between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Ch. 10). Admittedly this section is also inflated as this is where the wisdom quotations occur. The film also spends sometime examining the lesser known events of chapters 11 and 12, which is most welcome.

A couple of further observations. Firstly, the dedication of the temple scene is played down somewhat. In Kings, this dedication is accompanied by a major blood sacrifice ("so many sheep and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted" 8:5), and God responds by filling the temple with a cloud (symbolic of his glory). Here there are neither, although a bolt of lightning does strike as the doors are shut.

It's also interesting that whilst this is one of the more honest accounts of these events one thing is still glossed over. The role of Abishag here is changed into some form of herbalist, rather than her somewhat more bizarre role as a human hot water bottle in 1 Kings 1:1-4. Whilst the text is clear that "the king had no intimate relations with her", she certainly went into his bed.

One final alteration to note. In scripture, the arrival of the Queen of Sheba is the next major event after the dedication of the temple, suggesting that the visit is triggered by the dedication (see for example 1 Kings 8:41-43). Solomon's wisdom is in building this temple rather than the case of the 2 women and the baby (what would have happened if neither woman had reacted, or if both had?)

Solomon (1997)

Solomon has always seemed a strange choice of biblical hero. In fact, it’s questionable whether he is a hero at all. Inheriting a large, politically secure kingdom, and in possession of a God given gift of wisdom, he does little more than solve a tricky dispute, build a temple, and impress the queen of Sheba. One could argue for his contribution to literature, but it’s unclear to most scholars exactly how much he had to do with the wisdom books which bear his name. Conversely, his building projects bankrupted the nation’s goodwill, whilst his marrying 700 wives left him spiritually desolate (presumably someone else planned all the weddings).

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that there are relatively few films about Israel’s most enigmatic monarch. There’s a collection of early silents of course, plus one or two other minor films such as the one made for the Greatest Heroes of the Bible series, but, for years, King Vidor’s Solomon and Sheba (1959) was the only major film treatment of the story.

Thankfully, the Bible Collection did decide it was worth covering, and overall they have far outstripped Vidor’s film (which was little more than an orgy scene padded out with a trite storyline).

Perhaps the major reason for the film’s success is the quality of the acting.
This has been uneven across the Bible Collection as a whole. Whilst the series has used many well-known actors, these have generally been supported by relative unknowns. Rarely have these unknowns performed as well as they do here. Richard Dillane, Ivan Kaye, and Dexter Fletcher – all with only a handful to TV work to their names at the time of filming – are all impressive in the roles of Jeroboam, Adonijah and Rehoboam. Dillane is particularly good as Jeroboam who rises from labourer to Solomon’s closet confidant, and ultimately his successor.

The title role is played by Ben Cross, best known for his portrayal of another Jewish hero, sprinter Harold Abrahams in Chariots of Fire (1981).
Whilst, in real life, it is Abrahams’ counterpart, Eric Liddell, who is best remembered, it is actually Cross’s performance that makes the film so memorable. His burning intensity typifies the drive required of champion sprinters, and his smouldering, glowering stares manage, paradoxically, to leave the viewer both convinced that Abrahams will win whilst fearing that, somehow, he won’t.

Cross’s portrayal here is similarly complex, perfectly capturing a king famed for his wisdom, but crippled by his folly; loved for his vision, but blinded by love. His first few steps are uncertain, but he quickly finds his stride – the transformation is subtle yet utterly convincing. Later on, Solomon drifts away from his God, but the deterioration is depicted so gradually that it is impossible to work out where is really started to go wrong. At one point, Cross’s Solomon is so charismatic that it almost threatens to undo the logic of the narrative. He makes his case for religious tolerance so convincingly, that any social commentary intended by the filmmakers falls by the wayside.

But the film has many other strengths besides its acting. Roger Young has been at the helm for a number of The Bible Collection's best efforts including Moses and Jesus, and his direction is generally good here as well. For example, by placing less reliance on dialogue than looks and mannerisms, the Solomon-Queen of Sheba sub-plot is realised far more convincingly than the extra-biblical romances in many of the other Bible Collection films. At the same time, it is let down by being a little overlong. Whilst this was no doubt to emphasise the pivotal nature of this relationship, that is made quite clear by the following scenes, and the two together tend to hammer home the point a little too much.

What is surprising about these scenes is that they almost entirely eschew quotations from Song of Solomon, in favour of crass, but epic-sounding, dialogue such as "she is my missing arm. No, she is my entire body". Only one line from Song of Solomon stood out - "how much better are your kisses than wine?" Elsewhere, however, the film does a generally good job of incorporating Solomon’s writings into the narrative, thanks to Bradley T. Winter's strong script. The scene following Sheba’s departure, where Solomon recites several portions of the book of Ecclesiastes is particularly effective. There is also a fairly generous helping of proverbs. Thus the film links Solomon to his writings in the following order - Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes - in contrast to Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes which many favour. But then the Bible Collection series has always been good at taking an alternative look at things, and thankfully on this occasion this strength is more than matched by the strength of the film as a whole.

David (1997) Scene Guide

Here's the corresponding Scene Guide to Robert Markowitz's David, which I reviewed last week. In drawing this up, I'm aware several of the incidents are paralleled in 1 & 2 Chronicles, but I've given preference to the older Samuel, Kings (and Psalms).

Part 1
Death of Saul and Jonathan - (1 Sam 31)
Capture of Jebus - (2 Sam 5:6-16)
[Extra-Biblical Episode]
Saul meets Samuel - (1 Sam 9)
Samuel anoints Saul - (1 Sam 10)
War with Amonites - (1 Sam 11)
Samuel rebukes Saul - (1 Sam 13)
Saul spares Agog (Amalek) - (1 Sam 15:1-15)
God rejects Saul - (1 Sam 15:16-35)
Samuel Anoints David - (1 Sam 16:1-13)
David plays to relieve Saul - (1 Sam 16:14-23)
(Psalm 23)
David and Goliath - (1 Sam 17)
(Psalm 66)
David & the philistine foreskins - (1 Sam 18)
(Psalm 68)
Michal saves David - (1 Sam 19)
David and Jonathan - (1 Sam 20)
David at Nob - (1 Sam 21)
(Psalm 63)
Saul kills the priests of Nob - (1 Sam 22)
David Nabal and Abigail - (1 Sam 25)
David spares Saul's life - (1 Sam 24 & 26)
(Psalm 57)
Death of Samuel - (1 Sam 25:1)
Amalekites capture Abigail - (1 Sam 30)
(Psalm 94)
The Witch of Endor - (1 Sam 28)
Death of Saul and Jonathan - (1 Sam 31, 2 Sam 1:19)
David Dances - (2 Sam 6)
David refused temple building - (2 Sam 7)
David and Bathsheba - (2 Sam 11:1-5)

Part 2
David and Uriah - (2 Sam 11:6-27)
Nathan rebukes David - (2 Sam 12:1-14)
(Psalm 51)
David's child dies - (2 Sam 12:15-23)
Birth of Solomon - (2 Sam 12:24-25)
[Extra-Biblical Episodes]
Amnon, Tamar and Absalom - (2 Sam 13)
Woman of Tekoa - (2 Sam 14)
Absalom's conspiracy - (2 Sam 15:1-12)
David Flees Absalom - (2 Sam 15:13-37)
(Psalm 83)
Shimei curses David - (2 Sam 16:5-14)
Hushai and Ahithophel - (2 Sam 16:15-17:29)
Death of Absalom - (2 Sam 18)
David returns to Jerusalem - (2 Sam 19)
David names his successor - (1 Ki 1:28-35)
God's promise to David - (2 Sam 7:12-16)

Notes
One of the particular points of interest in this film is the use of the Psalms. Firstly it's a little strange that this up-to-date version of David's life, spoken in modern English, is punctuated every now and then by Psalms taken from the King James Version. What is more interesting is how the tone of those Psalms darkens as the film progresses. The first Psalm David recites is Psalm 23, which, despite its frequent use in funerals, is actually incredibly upbeat. This is a man so sure and confident of the hand of God in his life that he doesn't even fear a hypothetical journey through the valley of the shadow of death, and is more focussed on the table that God has prepared for him than it's less than desirable location.

This is followed by two Psalms that are increasingly concerned by the existence of said enemies, Psalms 66 and 68. By the fourth Psalm (Psalm 63), David is beginning to sound a little more distant from his God, even if he is choosing to offer him worship anyway. That is quickly followed by pleas for mercy (Psalm 57), demands for vengeance (Psalm 94), repentance (Psalm 51), and finally a desperate plea for God to speak / act as the writer's enemies close in on him (Psalm 83). It's fair to say that the progression of these Psalms corresponds to the way the tone of the film develops. This also corresponds roughly to the pattern of David's walk with God found in David and Bathsheba.

There are a few places where there are visual references to other passages from Samuel. For example, whilst the narrative doesn't cover the start of the incident with Nahash the Ammonite, Saul is joined at that point by a number of men who have no right eye (although in the text it implies Saul gets there in time to save them. It depends, I suppose, on quite how long it takes to send pieces of ox to the coasts of Israel!)

That however, may also be part of this film's tendency to de-mythologize the stories. If so, it is an interesting place to start. Perhaps the most striking example of this is in the battle between David and Goliath. Goliath is actually well short of the height given in the text (six cubits and a span - over nine foot), still large compared to David, but no so extraordinary. It does bring to mind the way Gregory Peck's David suggests that even in his lifetime Goliath's height has been exaggerated, only for the film's climatic flashback to actually verify the biblical measurement.

Finally, whilst the film subverts the text in that example, it continues the Bible Collection's squeamishness with Old Testament polygamy. So just as Keturah makes no appearance in Abraham (Gen 25:1), and the Cushite wife of Moses (Num 12:1) is similarly absent, we see something similar here. Firstly, Ahinoam (David's third wife - 1 Sam 25:42) is entirely absent, even though the preceding story, where David marries Abigail (1 Sam 25:1-41) is included, as is the following verse explaining that Michal had remarried (1 Sam 25:43). Later on we are shown David with three of his wives (the re-instated Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba), but poor Ahinoam is still absent. Finally the narrative ends with God's promises regarding Solomon, rather than the more obvious scene of David's death, thus circumventing the unusual role of Abishag. (1 Kings 1)

David (1997)

Amongst the many heroes and men of good repute in the Hebrew Bible, two stand head and shoulders above the others – Moses and David. The phenomenal success of The Ten Commandments (1956) has given Moses the edge amongst biblical epics. Nevertheless, David has also been a popular figure, from 1909’s Saul and David, through to Bruce Beresford’s King David (1985), the last Bible film to be made by a major Hollywood studio. Over the years films about David have had their pick of good actors, with Gregory Peck and Richard Gere both taking the role of Israel’s finest monarch.

The Bible Collection has produced their own versions of both men’s lives. This time around though, the big names in David are the co-stars, Leonard Nimoy (Samuel) and Jonathan Pryce (Saul). Nimoy is destined to be always remembered as Mr. Spock, and his career has struggled to recover from the extraordinary popularity of one of the TV/cinema’s best known roles. On the other hand, Pryce will be remembered for different films by different people. For some it will be Terry Gilliam’s futuristic nightmare Brazil; For others as James Bond’s enemy in Tomorrow Never Dies; Still others will remember him from Evita, Carrington, Pirates of the Caribbean or, in my case, Selling Hitler.

David himself is played by Nathaniel Parker, who at the time was relatively unknown, but has subsequently gone on to play the lead in The Inspector Lynley Mysteries and Skimpole in the recent BBC version of Bleak House. Strangley however, it’s the lesser known Parker whose other work ends up being the most distracting. The chameleonic Pryce easily adapts to any role he is given, and even Nimoy manages not to evoke too many memories of Mr. Spock. But anyone watching David after Bleak House will find that thanks to Parker’s distinctive features Skimpole is never be far away.

Parker’s performance as David certainly isn’t bad, but for the first half of the film he is acted off the park by Pryce, who excels in every scene he features in. He gives Saul a desperate intensity, soaring with confidence one minute only to be wracked with fear the next.

As with most of the Bible Collection series, the story is split into two ninety-minute episodes. Unusually part 1 commences with the death of Saul, before returning to his calling years earlier, and progressing through to the film’s starting point towards the end of part 1. The stories of David accession to king, and the stories of the early years of his rule are quickly summarised and the story breaks shortly after, partway through the incident with Bathsheba.

The second half opens with David dispatching Uriah and works through the various stories surrounding the subsequent collapse of David’s family. These are the lesser-known, and less dramatic stories from David’s life. As a series, The Bible Collection has sought to bring these more obscure stories back into the limelight, and generally it has worked creditably well. Sadly, here it works less well. Whilst the first half of the film feels like an epic narrative, the second half devolves into something like a family soap opera. The difference between the natural drama of halves 1 and 2 is further emphasised by the deaths of Samuel and Saul shortly before the end of part 1, thus robbing us of the film’s two best and most charismatic actors. When Saul falls on his sword, his absence is felt keenly. New actors come in to play the later roles of Bathsheba, Amnon and Absalom, but their acting is too weak to carry the remainder of the film.

That’s not to say there is nothing to enjoy. David Beatty and Paul Rubell’s editing enhances the drama in several places. The flashback device of the first half gives it a stronger narrative ark, and heightens the tragedy of Saul’s demise. In the second half, one sequence in particular stands out. Scenes of David fleeing across the Jordan, are intercut with those of his son Absalom foolishly frolicking with his concubines. Meanwhile, Absalom’s dejected and ignored advisor Ahithophel hangs himself. The sequence forms the climax of part 2, made all the more impressive by the way Ahithophel’s death deftly pre-figures his master unusual demise shortly after.

Taken in isolation the story of David is ultimately a tragedy. Jonathan, Saul, Uriah, Amnon, Ahithophel and Absalom all die prematurely because of David and Saul’s moments of weakness. The filmmakers have chosen the episodes from David’s life most suitable for emphasising the tragic thread throughout the story. As the film progresses, the Psalms David utters grow darker and darker. Whilst the final scene attempts to provide an upbeat ending, it cannot mask the frank and honest appraisal of Saul and David’s lives that the film gives over all. David may have ended up one of the biggest heroes in the bible, but this film reminds us that even those God has chosen can inflict much unnecessary pain.