Testament: Joseph (1996)

As with several of the other entries in the Testament: Bible in Animation series, Joseph is made using the same Russian animation method that was the predominant style in The Miracle Maker (2000). However, whereas The Miracle Maker complemented its use of puppets with hand-drawn animation to represent psychological states of mind such as dreams, here the dreams of Joseph, his fellow prisoners and his pharaoh are merely reported rather than depicted. This preference for a more realist  approach is bold: it prioritises the story's original emphasis on its complex relationships, and Joseph's unlikely rise to power. However, within a decade The Prince of Egypt (1998) and its Joseph prequel Joseph: King of Dreams (2000) as well as The Miracle Maker produced such impressive, spectacular and acclaimed out of dream material that this film does rather suffer by comparison.

The story's economy is clear from the start - Joseph is about to be thrown into the well, and the characters dialogue naturally summarises the events that have already transpired. Joseph is sold to Potiphar, then refuses his wife and finds himself in jail. The filmmakers draw various visual parallels between well and prison, but Joseph's desperation is short lived: when he correctly interprets Pharaoh's dream he gets assigned the task of saving the country. Joseph again prospers and is eventually able to be reunited with his brothers and, more importantly, his father.

The expressive nature of the Russian animation really draw out the story's pathos, and makes this version a far more emotionally impacting portrayal of these events than either other animated efforts or even the various acted versions. I think the brevity of this portrayal helps in this respect, as well as the graceful yet sad movements and wide-eyed expressions on the puppets faces. The spectacular nature of Joseph's rise is really only apparent in the one scene (pictured above) when Joseph is first brought before Pharaoh. As much as I appreciate that moment, I can't help but feel that the filmmakers decision to opt for a simpler, more earthy, approach is justified by its ultimately more moving results.

Ishmael in Film - Part 2

This is the the second of two posts about Ishmael in film. The first, it turns out, was rather error strewn, and anyone with any decency would have gone and made the corrections and added the labels and so on before writing the second. He or she would probably also write a better more meaningful post for part two and reply to comments more consistently. But unfortunately, you got me.

There are 6 films that I'm able to lay my hands on that depict Ishmael, but to be honest none of them really do much of great interest with him. This is, I suppose, mainly because he is a minor character. The Bible, and the films that do adapt his story, or rather his part in Abraham's story, are not really interested in him, they are interested in Abraham and Sarah and how they act and react. There's a certain amount of etiology in the Bible's account: Ishmael goes on to be the father of the Ishmaelites (popularly considered to be the descendants of the Arab people), and some of the Edomites (Gen 36) who both become enemies of the Israelites at times (although trusted servants at others - 1 Chron 27:30 for example). Gen 25:18 makes special mention of the Ishmaelites living in "hostility" to all the other tribes.

Essentially though Ishmael is a passive character, acted upon by Abraham, Sarah, and to a lesser extent Hagar, but never really an active initiator. The last mention of Ishmael the man is from Genesis 25. He is with Isaac when Abraham is buried (which raises the question as to how contact was made / maintained between the half-brothers) and dies himself at the age of 137.

This doesn't leave scriptwriters a great deal to work with, and although with some characters such a blank sheet might be seen as an invitation to be creative, the need to focus on Abraham means that none of the films really take it.

The Bible (1966)
Sarai takes the initiative here, calling Hagar over and whispering into her ear. She waits for Abram, explains to him her plan. The enmity between Sarai and Ishmael (Gen 16:4) is made explicit early on with Hagar disdainfully comparing Sarai to "dried-up fruits", but it doesn't go to the extent we find in the rest of Genesis as Hagar does not flee from Sarah. The scene then changes to Abram's rescue of Lot (Gen 14), before returning to Ishmael's birth and childhood. But it's Sarah who urges Abraham to send them away, after Ishmael seizes a doll at a celebration of Isaac weaning, and then smashes it and buries it. Sarah again urges Abraham to take action; he is reluctant, but ultimately yields. The narrator adds that God also endorsed the plan in a sentence that sounds too ludicrously anachronistic to be from the KJV but actually is ("Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad"). The next scene is of bright desert sands reflecting the sun and the suddenness of the switch from the previous night-time scene, to the brightness of this scene, is at once beautiful and momentarily painfully glaring. Hagar and Ishmael collapse in the desert and Hagar cries out to God before an angel appears and makes water spring from the ground.

Abraham (1994)
Again everything is Sarai's idea, though here she asks Hagar as her free choice and then proposes it to Abram. Once the baby is born however Hagar makes comments to Sarai about her affair with Pharaoh and then questions her choice of bed for the baby. Hagar then runs away and has a conversation with an angel in line with Gen 16 and including some prophetic words about Ishmael. Hagar and Sarai make up and Hagar gives birth whilst sat on Sarai's knee. But the film is very clear that the child is Sarah's such that even as she is recovering from childbirth, Hagar has to lie there watching Abram and Sarai bring up Ishmael. There's an interesting scene with Abram and Ishmael preparing a sacrifice, which heavily prefigures God "testing" Abraham.

Isaac is born and looks up dotingly to Ishmael, cheering him on as he wrestles with older men and bests them.But as the boys grow older, the tension re-emerges between their mothers.  Sarah fears that Ishmael will do what Hagar tells him, and that Hagar wants to usurp Isaac and make Ishmael the leader. So Sarah persuades Abraham to send the pair away. They go off into the desert (Ishmael with a quiver slung over his shoulder), and struggle for their lives before the visitation from an angel. The spring appears though it's not explicitly a miracle. This, I think, is the only film to show both the times Genesis records Hagar meeting an angel.

Testament: The Bible in Animation - Abraham (1996)
Testament makes the primary focus of the Abraham's whole story, his search for an heir. Right from the start, during Abraham's time in Haran, his failure to find an heir is seen as a big problem, highlighted by both the narration and Sarah's isolation from the children who play around her. Once the move to Canaan is completed it's Sarah's idea for Abraham to have a child through Hagar, the sex is skipped over and the next scene is of a heavily pregnant Hagar still doing tasks for Sarah. Sarah asks "Have you done your work", to which Hagar snaps back "I've certainly done yours". Hagar runs into the desert but is spoken to by angelic/God figure, who tells her to return and not fear Sarah: "Do not be afraid she will be kind".

Again the film seems to skip over another of the more human moments of the story by missing Ishmael's birth. Of all the films this is really the only one to give Ishmael a proper role. He's seen talking to his father and asking "It will be a brother won't it?". It also both shows and mentions Ishmael with a bow and arrow as per Gen 21:20. Ultimately, though it is Sarah who sends Hagar away telling her husband "I will decide". Abraham is reluctant but hears God concur. "Free them" commands this film's God, trying its best to put some kind of positive spin on an episode that doesn't really reflect well on The Almighty.

The Bible: In the Beginning (2000)
Abraham is the main character in the first part of this two part miniseries - indeed even the creation story is narrated by him (to his people). Sarai offers Abram a concubine. He initially refuses, but eventually he visits her tent in the middle of the night. Next scene a heavily pregnant Hagar argues with Sarah and escapes to the desert. Drinking from a pool of water she sees a shadow in the pool and a Godly voice prophesies about Ishmael. Ishmael is born. Abram is happy, Sarai less so. Soon enough she's pregnant and it's Hagar that's in a grump. Isaac's born, Abe's happy again, but soon Sarah becomes all protective and scolds Ishmael. (Hagar and Sarah argue again, Sarah really doesn't come out of her dealings with Hagar with much credit) and soon Hagar's heading back to the desert. Abram weakly tells her God will look after her but the provision of water in the desert is missed out. If that sounds like one of dullest pieces of writing ever to appear on this blog then its because the Ishmael episodes are dealt with in such a dully mundane fashion that it drains any interest from the task of recounting it.

What's a little more interesting though is that Ishmael reappears (at the head of group of horsemen) just before Abraham dies. He and Isaac verbally jostle over pecking order and then Abraham blesses them both equally, making a vaguely 21st century sounding statement about respecting different paths, which sounds a bit forced, but at least it's something of interest in an otherwise turgid portrayal. This is the only film to show the death of Abraham.

The Real Old Testament (2003)
Ishmael doesn't actually appear in this endlessly hilarious version of Genesis, but the chapters 16 and 21 of Genesis are covered and feature Hagar fairly memorably. It's Sarai that suggests Abram taking Hagar as a concubine, and has to explain to him what it actually means. Abram is rather more keen on the plan here than in the other films, and, as he spends his night with Hagar in a sillhouetted tent, is heard triumphantly shouting "I'm young again".

Hagar flees Sarai and meets God in the desert, and as the film doesn't really deal with the story from Genesis 21 that's more or less it. It does however pick up on a couple of parts of chapter 16 that the other film's miss. First is God's prediction that Ishmael will be a "wild ass of a man". In one of Hagar's talking to the camera sequences she clearly sees that as possible. "I have this uncle and he's a wild ass of a man". Also covered is Hagar naming God El-roi in Gen 16:13. God, however, is not impressed: "I'm not going to let that one stick".

The Bible (2013)
Of all the films discussed here, this is the one that simultaneously sexes things, whilst going to the other extreme to portray Abraham as whiter than white. When Sarah suggests that Abraham has his child through her, Abraham is initially vehement "no, no, no, no, no, no, no", but he does anyway. But as he departs from Hagar's tent he leaves the door open for long enough for Sarah and, more crucially, the camera to get a good look in. Hagar sits up, still naked, her beautiful back exposed to the elements. It's a very sexualised image, but in contrast, Abraham, fully clothed walks away as if he has been emotionally unaffected by the whole affair.

We also see Ishmael practising his archery (as per Gen 21:20), and Abraham celebrating his son's prowess. The story then cuts to the rather gratuitously violent story of Sodom before returning to the birth of Isaac. Ishmael and Hagar are dispatched fairly quickly - though there is a heavy implication that it is God's decision and that Abraham is assured by God that they will survive, and prophesies to Ishmael that he will have many children. The camera fades on the two as they walk into the desert and there's no death of Abraham scene for him to feature in.

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.

Testament: David and Saul

Give the average quiz show host the category "The Bible" and ask them to complete the following - David and          - and you'd get the same answer every time. Indeed the working title for Scott Derickson's proposed film about events from the books of Samuel even omits David's name, opting simply for Goliath.

The giant everyone loves to hate does feature in Testament's David and Saul, but he's a relatively minor figure. Even David is not the film's greatest concern. The film might even have been called Saul and David - it's Israel's first king that is the leading character in this production, rather than his more famous successor.

I remember very little of David and Saul from my first viewing roughly eight years ago. It certainly didn't make much of an impression. This time around however it was quite different. Eight years on it seems like a complex and striking examination of a man fighting his demons. Whether or not "demons" should be taken literally perhaps accounts for the difference in my reactions to my two viewings of this film. Then I was open to the idea that when the Bible said demons it may, on occasion, simply be talking about something like epilepsy. Now I would tend to assume some form of health issue was what was being mentioned even if I remain open to the possibility that occasionally something supernatural might be responsible.

That the film is primarily about what is going on in Saul's head is apparent from the opening scene. Instead of seeing David in the fields chasing lambs, or wistfully playing his harp in the countryside, we start with Saul raving in his throne room. The location shot tells us that it's night, and it slowly pans up a dark rocky outcrop before reaching a foreboding prison-like castle at the top. The throne room itself is also dimly lit and sinister music accompanies Saul's deep seated paranoia. At the mention of Samuel's name there's a flash back to the last meeting between the two, king and prophet.

Samuel himself is a shadowy figure in this film. Dressed in a dark, hooded, robe he only appears in flashbacks, voices in Saul's head and as an ghostly apparition at the witches cave in Endor. Even Samuel's anointing of David is made highly ambiguous - David certainly doesn't realise he has been appointed king.

By placing Samuel's confrontation of Saul in the midst of this scene of his madness manifesting himself, there's an implication that it is this incident which is the cause of Saul's condition, be it mental illness or spiritual affliction. It's never entirely clear which way the filmmakers understand it. Certainly the characters in the film believe it's the latter, as is consistent with their world-view but the content of the film itself - aside from the narrator's opening mention of Saul being "seized by an evil spirit" - makes a fairly strong case the other way.

It's not until after this scene that David makes an appearance, killing a bear, playing for the king, being outraged by his countrymen's cowardice in the face of Goliath and then volunteering to slay the Philistine giant. But even as Goliath is hitting the floor, Saul is haunted by Samuel's voice in his head: "Another man, a better man than you...". This leads into a montage of David's victories, his adoration at the hands of the crowd and the evident love Saul's children have for him. Each moment is accompanied by Samuel's same words, "Another man, a better man than you...". One particularly enjoyable visual moment here is a pan across a stone relief depicting David's victories.

David continues to play to soothe Saul's turmoil and Saul attempts to kill him. David flees and Saul hunts him down. Whilst in his pursuit Saul hears of Samuel's death, hears the prophet's voice "we shall never meet again" and decides to outlaw consulting with the dead. The next scene is of David sneaking into Saul's camp and stealing his spear.

The final part of the film deals with Saul's death. His armies face the numerically superior Philistines and being unable to hear God's voice he seeks out the witch of Endor. Samuel's ghost appears - it's a highly ambiguous portrayal, Samuel's form is transparent and shrouded in green mist. The battle goes on and Saul and Jonathan die. The camera lingers on their dead bodies still upright and greyed out as if they are statues already yesterday's men being commemorated.

This is the true end of the film. There is a final scene but it's an epilogue accompanied only by the narrator's voice. David is crowned in the bright sun. It's pretty much the sun has been seen in the film. The occasional scene has been shot during the day, but the majority of it is portrayed at night, and dark colours dominate the film, particularly where Saul is concerned. The visuals throughout are striking actually. It would be easy to write off David and Saul as a mere cartoon, particularly as it lacks the expressionism of other films in the series, but the animation is far superior to most hand-drawn films: a true work of art. The use of colour is very strong, particularly the contrast between Saul and David, but also the evocative backgrounds, doing for this film what the scenery in so many westerns does for them.

David and Saul may not be a conventional take on the film, but it's all the better for it. Instead of a typical story of the underdog, it's a complex examination of the descent into darkness - mental or spiritual - of Israel's first king, and certainly the finest exploration of Saul that I have seen.

Testament: Moses

It took Cecil B DeMille nearly four hours to tell his version of the Moses story - even longer if you count the ten minute theatrical trailer. So it's interesting to see someone else tell the story in just half an hour. Whilst this film ends a good deal of time before the giving of the Ten Commandments, it still manages to tell the story of the first fifteen chapters of Exodus very effectively in such a short time frame. Of course elements are missed out. Like many Moses films not all of the ten plagues are shown, and other common omissions, such as God trying to kill Moses on the road back to Egypt, are also excluded. Running time is also cut back by telling the story of Moses' birth and childhood in a flashback along with an account of Moses murdering an Egyptian. The film opens with Aaron aiding Moses' escape from Egyptian soldiers.

Like most of the Testament series the animation uses a more expressive style, marking it as much for adults as for children. Here the characters all have a lithe, elongated shape which lends them a sense of elegance - fitting for what is essentially a battle of wills between a Pharaoh, a former prince and the sovereign God. The animators also use their medium to great effect. Aside from the flashback, set against a deep red sky, there is also a literally red Red Sea. There's also a notable moment when the tenth plague is shot from the point of view of the Angel of Death, and the closing zoom out shot is cleverly executed.

Two years after this film the more well known animated version of this film hit the silver screen. The Prince of Egypt had a much larger budget, but seems to have drawn at least some inspiration from the earlier film. Aside from the expressive use of animation, the opening scenes emphasising the rivalry between Moses and the Pharaoh, in this case Menephtah (son of Ramsees II). They even compete in chariot races.

But this is one of the few Moses films to show Aaron speaking for Moses, even if Moses does take over in the end. It also uses the correct initial request of Moses and Aaron - to be allowed to go to worship in the desert. Such fidelity to the original text is matched by the subtle ways the film introduces elements of historical context into the background. For example, the blooding of the Nile takes place during a religious festival celebrating the God of the Nile, and there's also a mention of a frog god who is quite literally toppled by a plague of his amphibian minions. The script also reminds us that Pharaoh himself was viewed as a god, and that ultimately it is he, rather than the idols that adorn his palace, which is Yahweh's primary target.

Overall, this is one of the strongest entries in the Testament series, with fine voice work from Martin Jarvis as Moses and Simon Callow as Menephtah, but it's the vivid illustration which really catches the eye and gives real significance and texture to this most critical of Old Testament stories.

=======================

This is one of a series of reviews of the films from the series Testament: The Bible in Animation. The entire nine-film series has recently been re-released on DVD by the Bible Society.

Testament: The Bible in Animation Finally Comes to DVD

Over the years I've made various posts about the short series of Hebrew Bible films Testament: The Bible in Animation. Whilst these short films have been available on Region 1 DVD for a while, potential purchases have had to buy them individually, putting pressure on shelves as well as pockets.

So I was really pleased to discover that the Bible Society has now made them all available on a 2 DVD box set. I can't seem to find out whether the set is region 2 or region 0, but hopefully I'll find that out fairly soon. The Bible Society never do these things by halves, so in addition to the nine films, there are also resource packs to download for teachers and church groups. The DVDs have subtitles, but seemingly no other extras.

The 9 titles are as follows (with links to my reviews)

* Episode 1: Creation and Flood (25 mins)
* Episode 2: Abraham (25 mins) - pictured
* Episode 3: Moses (27 mins)
* Episode 4: Jonah (26 mins)
* Episode 5: Ruth (25 mins)
* Episode 6: Elijah (27 mins)
* Episode 7: Joseph (26 mins)
* Episode 8: David and Saul (27 mins)
* Episode 9: Daniel (24 mins)

For those not familiar with the series, it was made by the same team who went on to create The Miracle Maker, and like that film they use a variety of different animated techniques across the series - although they stick to one technique per episode. Whilst the films certainly are suitable for children, they have a fairly grown up take on things - don't think for a minute that they are just for the kids - and the animated medium used is itself often very expressionistic.

Like any series some are better than others, though that's due in part to individual preferences about animation styles, but overall this is a great series,with certain instalments offering the best film interpretation yet of their particular story.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Daniel

My church is looking at Daniel next term so I thought I'd make a couple of posts about portrayals of Daniel in film. There have actually only been a handful - and the most significant is the version that is part of the Testament: The Bible in Animation series (1996).

The series used different animation styles for each episode, here, as with the Creation and Flood episode, they animators used oil paint on glass. This creates an unusual effect, which is certainly very unlike anything most children are used to. That said the Testament series has always set it's sights on a wider audience than just children, hence why this production stands out from the whole host of cartoon about Daniel in the Lions' Den.

Its use here is interesting as Daniel narrative is told as a story within a story. A mother tells her son the tale of Daniel as a way of giving him hope. This contrasts with most of the series where the stories are usually experienced first hand. So the washy animation reflects the fact that the story is presented less concretely than some of the other stories. It also leads to a rather gruesome appearance to some of the less child friendly moments in the story. The non-realistic animation makes these shots more permissible, yet paradoxically more disturbing at the same time.

Watching the "Testament" series over ten years after it was first made, it becomes apparent that many of the actors who were involved have subsequently risen to greater prominence. In this case it's Bill Nighy who now has a great deal of Hollywood experience behind him. He plays Belshazzar, who, bizarrely, begins the Daniel sequence as an intrigued friend of Daniel's.

Episodes from the Book of Daniel included in the film are as follows:

[extra-biblical episode - intro]
Jerusalem Captured - (Dan 1:)
Daniel and his Friends Train - (Dan 1:3-21)
The King Dreams - (Dan 2:1-30)
Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd Dream - (Dan 4:10b-27)
The King's Dream Fulfilled - (Dan 4:28-35)
The Writing on the Wall - (Dan 5:1-31)
[extra-biblical episode - Start of Darius's Reign]
Daniel and the Lions' Den - (Dan 6:1-28)
[extra-biblical episode - conclusion]

I found the character rather hard to relate to. I'd always thought of Daniel as humble but steadfast whereas here he often comes across as obstinate. By contrast, King Darius is shown as fairly weak, although that is largely as a result of the biblical material.

The most notable omission in this film is the jump from chapter 2 to chapter four. The script is able to do this because of Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams. Strangely it is the first, and most popular of these - the dream of the statue with feet of clay - which is omitted. The script starts off with the events of chapter 2 with Nebuchadnezzar having a dream that he wants his Magi to tell him as well as interpret. But when Daniel correctly declares and interprets the dream it has become the one from Daniel 4 (where Nebuchadnezzar dreams of a tree). It's an innovative way of editing the story, although as a result it pushes Daniel's friends into the wings even more.

In addition to this, there are a number of deviations from the Biblical accounts. Firstly, Daniels faces a common enemy throughout the film in the form of the Chief Magus. Secondly, when Daniel's friends refuse to eat the meat provided they make do with little more than water, rather than vegetables and water as the Bible claims.

The other deviation are fairly minor: as Nebuchadnezzar goes mad there is no voice from heaven; Daniel is present when the hand writes on the wall, and Daniel prays that those who set him up in chapter 6 are saved. But this is acceptable artistic licence in the whole.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Creation and the Flood

Evan Almighty is released in the UK today so I thought it was about time I added another post to my series on Noah films.

Creation and Flood is the first entry in the generally excellent Testament: Bible in Animation series by S4C (Wales) and Christmas Films (Russia). Like the similarly titled Bible Collection film Genesis: Creation and Flood (1994) the story of the creation of the world is told by Noah. The creation part of the story and the Noah part of the story use two different styles of animation which not only helps the viewer differentiate between the two interwoven stories, but also split the workload between S4C and Christmas Films. The creation part of the story was created by Christmas films using paint on glass whereas the story of the flood was filmed by S4C using cell animation.

The result is an interesting mix of animation styles although the difference between them is not quite as marked as in The Miracle Maker. As a result it suggests that the two events reflect only marginally different layers of reality.

Unfortunately, this is not one of the stronger entries in the Testament series, with the Noah section being particularly disappointing. There's very little sense of wonder, or desperation in this tale. By cramming it into a half of a thirty minute section there's very little space to develop the story - it never feels like 120 days aboard the ark - that said the similarly-lengthed Disney films are definitely more successful in this regard. Those films also established a trend in animated versions of the Noah story of skipping past the flood's death toll. Here there is at least some mention of it, but once the rains start to fall the rest of humanity is swiftly forgotten.

The creation section of the film is far more successful. The animation is far more impressionistic, at least in places, which makes for more interesting viewing. In particular, the creation of Adam of Eve is handled with great skill. The single figure of Adam somersaults across the screen but appears to land upside down. It quickly becomes apparent that this is a reflection, only for a ripple to destroy the image. When it reforms, the image is different. The camera lifts up to see that Adam has now been joined by Eve.

There's also an interesting treatment of The Fall. This is also very impressionistic. Although the animation is more solid the Genesis account is proceeded by an account of the fall of Satan based on Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. When Satan does appear in the Garden of Eden, he alternates his physical form between a legged serpent and a floating mask.

Perhaps the most significant problem is that the way in which the creation and fall story is introduced disrupts the flow of the tale of Noah. This, combined with the lacklustre presentation of that story, means that by the end of the film, any interest in that part of the narrative has dissipated. Fortunately the Testament series survived its downbeat beginning and went on to achieve greater things.

Chattaway on Noah Films

I've been meaning to post this all week, but I've been a bit pushed for time, and now most people have probably seen this already. Nevertheless, for those of you who haven't yet had the pleasure, then BC Christian News has published a brief article by Peter Chattaway on film portrayals of Noah. It's part of BCN's look at Evan Almighty.

Peter discusses the following films:

Noah's Ark (1928)
Father Noah's Ark (1933)
Green Pastures (1936)
Noah's Ark (1959)
The Bible: In the Beginning (1966)
In Search of Noah's Ark (1976)
Genesis: Creation and the Flood (1994)
Noah's Ark (1999)
Fantasia 2000 (1999)

I've seen all of these except In Search of Noah's Ark (1976), which, to be honest doesn't tempt me much. I'll be writing about the ones I've not yet covered on this site (i.e. those not linked to above) soon, although I have reflected on the penultimate two films (plus one or two others) in my article on Genesis films.

There are two films that Peter didn't discuss. One is from the Testament: The Bible in Animation series. It's the only one of that series I've yet to see, but as I recently bought a copy on DVD I'll be blogging it shortly. The other is from the 1970s Greatest Heroes of the Bible series called The Story of Noah. That's one I've not seen, although judging by the others in the series it's unlikely to be either well produced or particularly insightful.

Peter's also had his article on Evan Almighty director Tom Shadyac published in the same issue of BCN.

Testament: The Bible in Animation: Elijah

Elijah has always been one of my favourite characters in the Old Testament. There’s just something about the way he sees his God do incredible things, and yet there is a frail insecure humanity about him that makes him easy to relate to. It’s a shame, therefore, that his story has largely been neglected by filmmakers. I’m aware of only four versions of the story: Sins of Jezebel (1953), Elijah - A Fearless Prophet from the “Living Bible Series” (1958), the Latter Day Saints version Elijah and the Widow of Zarephath (1996) and this entry in the “Testament: Bible in Animation” series, simply called Elijah (also 1996). IMDB gives two other possible films, but has no information other than their years.

As a whole, the series is animated using a whole range of different techniques, most of which are very expressionist, few of which sit simply as just “cartoons” (see posts on Jonah, Ruth). Elijah is no exception. Eschewing attempts to create life-like illustrations of these characters the animation is again highly stylised. Elijah looking like Atlas, Ahab wide and squat, Jezebel tall and decorated. This is not animation just for kids.

Another unusual feature of this film is the soundtrack. Most 30 minute cartoons maybe have a silly song or two to break up the story. Elijah, on the other hand, realises the epic nature of it’s material, and enhances the towering images on the screen with operatic music performed by the BBC National Orchestra of Wales and the BBC National Chorus of Wales. Elijah’s solos are performed by Bryn Terfel (as opposed to David Schofield who voices his speech).

The film depicts nearly all of the biblical material concerning Elijah as can be seen by looking at the following scene guide.

Intro to Ahab - (1 Kings 16:29-34)
Death of the prophets - (1 Kings 18:4)
Elijah predicts drought - (1 Kings 17:1)
Elijah and the Ravens - (1 Kings 17:2-6)
Elijah and Widow of Zarephath - (1 Kings 17:7-24)
Elijah and Prophets of Baal - (1 Kings 18:1-2, 16-40)
End of the Drought - (1 Kings 18:45-46)
Elijah on the mountain - (1 Kings 19:1-18)
Elijah calls Elishah - (1 Kings 19:19-21)
God declares Judgement on Ahab - (1 Kings 21:17-21)
Elijah taken to Heaven - (2 Kings 2:1-14)

The only episode missing from the film then is Elijah’s meeting with Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:3-15, although Elijah getting his servant to climb the mountain in search of a rain cloud is also excluded. The screenplay does also subtly add some useful pieces of historical information such as the fact that Baal was god of the rain, or that the widow of Zarephath hailed from the same place as Jezebel herself. It also illustrates the slaying of the prophets of God, which is only referred to in the text (1 Kings 18:4), but acts to provide a good context for the stories that follow.

Another note the film adds is when Elijah calls Elishah from his father’s fields. Elishah’s father tells Elishah he is due a double portion of his inheritance, and this is obvisouly still in Elishah’s mind when shortly afterwards he asks his spiritual father, Elijah, for a double portion of his blessing instead.

Testament: Jonah (1996)

I first came across the Testament: Bible in Animation series back in 1999 when The Miracle Maker was in cinemas. The Miracle Maker, of course, was the climax of the "Bible in Animation" series - expanding the screen time from 30 minutes to 90 minutes and, of course, covering the life of Christ. I caught seven of the nine films years ago, but had never had the opportunity to watch the Jonah episode until recently.

Previously, 9 stories from the Hebrew Bible had been filmed using a variety of styles of animation from stop-motion puppetry (claymation) utilised for the majority of The Miracle Maker through to a range of two dimensional techniques. The nine stories covered were Creation and the Flood, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Ruth, David and Saul, Elijah, Daniel and Jonah.

Jonah then is the last story in the series, and, as far as I am aware the only its only feature film treatment was Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie in 2002. Production also began on Jonah and the Whale in 1960, but, sadly, was never completed. There have, however, been a number of other animated shorts, including 1992's "Rabbit Ears" series which featured the voices of Dennis Hopper and Jason Robbards. Given that the story is narrated in just 40 verses (Jonah's prayer aside), it is perhaps not surprising that it has been more readily adapted into shorter films. It could also be argued that with its vivid and dramatic plot elements most producers have imagined it is more suitable for children than for more sceptical adult audiences. This would also explain why the similarly short story of Ruth has faired slightly better on the large screen. Such a reaction fails to understand the nature of story telling of course, but it's a possible explanation nevertheless.

As shown below, the film follows the biblical text fairly closely, although the prayer of Jonah is severely abbreviated. It opens showing the Ninevehites worshipping their false God's whilst Jonah moans under a tree about his people's lack of faithfulness.

[extra-biblical episode]
Call of Jonah - (Jonah 1:1-3)
Jonah at Sea - (Jonah 1:4-17)
Jonah's Prayer - (Jonah 2)
Jonah goes to Nineveh - (Jonah 3:1-4)
Nineveh repents - (Jonah 3:5-10)
Jonah's complaint - (Jonah 4:1-4)
Jonah and the Vine - (Jonah 4:5-11)

For some excellent commentary, discussion and resources on Jonah, I suggest you check out the Jonah section of Tyler William's Codex Blog. In looking afresh at the story last night I was particularly struck by the oddness of the Prayer of Jonah in chapter 2. It's been standard academic opinion for a long time now that this prayer is a later addition to the story. What struck me last night however is that other than the cursory use of drowning metaphors in verses 3 and 5, the prayer really has very little to do with Jonah, the big fish, Nineveh, or getting chucked out of a boat for disobeying God. Taken out of it's context it's classic psalm material, and the link with the Jonah story is as tenuous as it would be if Psalm 40 had been inserted into the story of Jeremiah getting thrown into a pit in Jer. 38.

Jonah is also notable for being a book where God appears to change his mind (or alternatively gets Jonah to say something God knows is not the truth). It's interesting that the film actually notes this supplementing Jonah's complaints in 4:2 with the words "I know you are the kind of god that would change his mind". It also made me wonder about the Ninevehites reaction when the predicted destruction failed to come about. Did they rejoice in their salvation, or look back with embarrassment at their reaction in a similar fashion to how our society looks back the millennium bug?

Three other quick points about the film's treatment of the bible: Firstly, it is good to see that Jonah is swallowed by a "big fish" rather than a whale. Secondly, it's interesting how the film-makers depict Jonah/God getting an entire city to repent to a god they do not know. Jonah is arrested and brought before the king, but as he is dragged through the streets his eyes flash with fire and his words (presumably carried by God's spirit) convict all those who hear him. Sadly the effect is a little too bizarre (more Dr. Who than the Bible), and feels out of step with the rest of the film.

Finally, the film, like the book, ends on a question, but the need to end the film within the boundaries of established filmic convention means that the images continue for a short while afterwards. Sadly this robs the film in general, and that question in particular, of the ability to challenge the audience on a personal level. Many commentators consider the story to have been included in scripture as a voice against the racism prevalent at the time. By distancing the question from the end of the film, the immediacy of its most poignant question is lost.

Otherwise the film is a fairly strong portrayal of the story, unafraid to pose a few awkward questions. It allows the text to speak for itself rather than hampering it with extraneous commentary. Visually the animation is a bit mixed, one or two scenes are poorly thought out and look cheap and cheesy. That said, in other places it includes some impressive and striking images notably the shot of Jonah sinking serenely down from the boat, content, for the moment, that his life is in God's hands.

The Miracle Maker (1999)

I watched this again last week, and was reminded how much I liked this version of the Jesus story. It appears that despite it being relatively recent, it is largely unknown, at least outside this country.

For those not in the know, I'll give a brief overview. The film was the product of a Russian / Welsh collaboration, by the same company who made the Testament: Bible in Animation series of 30 minute films based on stories from the Hebrew Bible. So this was the first (and still the only) feature length animated Jesus film. The majority of the film is shot using "claymation" (animation using plasticine / modelling clay as used by films such as Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the WereRabbit). This style seems to be more popular in Britain than in America.

I've enjoyed this film many times before. It was actually only the second ever Jesus film I had seen in the cinema (the first was Jesus (1979) years ago). What is remarkable about it is that despite being filmed using plasticine figures, it catches the humanity of Jesus more than any other film. At the same time it also does a good job of catching his divinity. Viewers familiar with a number of Jesus films will know that this is one of the issues that always come up when Jesus films are discussed. The earlier films emphasised his divinity by making him seem s remote and detached. By the time King of Kings came along in 1961, film-makers were beginning to talk about putting more emphasis on his humanity, but seemed unable to free him of this remoteness. Conversely more recent films have continued in the quest to portray a more human Jesus, but seemed to have sailed straight past the target. Last Temptation of Christ portrayed a man wracked by various emotional disorders - as, I think, Lloyd Baugh pointed out, it is not the film's low view of divinity that is the problem, but it's low view of humanity. Other recent films such as the Jesus mini-series that was also released in 1999, and 1996's The Visual Bible Matthew are trying so hard to portray him as someone who liked to laugh that he ends up too much of a clown, and lacking any sense of substance.

Somehow The Miracle Maker seems to get this just right. Jesus is incredibly good with people, he uses gentle humour in his teaching, and knows how to smile, but never compromised the sense that this is someone significant. Perhaps it's Ralph Fiennes's voice that does the work, or the fact that not using an actor makes it easier. Either way it's an incredible achievement, and one that has moved me to tears in the past. Strangely, I was never that moved by The Passion of the Christ.

There are other things I have always loved about this film. The use of animation is excellent. For those who have not seen it, whilst most of the film is claymation, there are several scenes shown using 2D hand drawn animation. These scenes are the ones that are either flashbacks (such as the nativity episodes), or more supernatural (such as the deliverance of Mary Magdalene), or for Jesus's parables and teaching. There are numerous results of this. One is that it helps keep younger viewers engaged. Perhaps most significantly though, is that it allows the film to be more emotional and expressionistic at these more imagery-rich moments of the story.

That said, this time round there were a few things I really only noticed for the first time. Perhaps most significantly I was struck by how historically rooted this version of the Jesus story was. I kept thinking Tom Wright would like that, and thus wasn't surprised when both he, and the now Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams were both named as advisors at the end of the film. For example, there is a scene between Pilate and the centurion long before the crucifixion where they discuss the revolt the centurion has just put down by crucifying 117 rebels. Whilst I believe the timing of this incident is not based on a specific historical incident, it does emphasise what most Jesus films miss - that Jesus's execution was, from a Roman point of view, nothing out of the ordinary.

Later on there we are shown the post-resurrection appearance to Cleopas and companion on the Road to Emmaus. Whilst the exact quote escapes me, there is also some discussion here of what resurrection actually meant in that period.

Which brings me on to another thing I like about the film - the attention given to the resurrection. This is probably the section of the gospels filmed with the most variation and creativity of all. Whilst some films have excluded it all together, such as Son of Man (1969), others have taken more creative, but ambiguous, interpretations (Jesus of Montreal, Jesus Christ Superstar, Last Temptation of Christ). Of those that have chosen to show a more literal interpretation, they have either given it relatively short shrift (Jesus of Nazareth) or eschewed the biblical accounts and replaced them with their own interpretations of what happened (The Passion of the Christ).

In contrast, The Miracle Maker shows Mary finding the empty tomb (John 20:1)and then meeting the risen Jesus (John 20:11-18), Mary telling Peter, and him running to the tomb (John 20:2-7), Peter meeting Jesus (a fictionalised abbreviation of John 21:15-19), The Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), And the second appearance to the disciples, including Thomas (John 20:36-41), and the Ascension (Luke 24:48-53).

I'll post a full scene guide in a few days, but if you fancy watching a Jesus film at some point over the Easter period, and you haven't seen this one yet, then I'd strongly recommend it.

Edit [5:25pm]
I've just noticed that Lesa Bellevie over at The Magdalene Review has also just seen this film and posted her comments on it. Obviously she's mainly concerned with Mary Magdalene, so she analyses that part of the film in some depth. There are also some pictures from the deliverance scene. FWIW this is one of the few films that actually depicts Mary along biblical, rather than traditional lines (i.e. she is someone who Jesus casts seven spirits out of and who witnesses his resurrection, but she is NOT a prostitute)

I've also now written some notes on my Scene Guide.

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