“Exodus: Gods and Kings”
Why Ridley Scott’s Upcoming Film Might Be a Hit with Christians
The article below, written in July 2014, was an estimated guess — an optimistic one — about Ridley Scott’s new film, whether it would portray the Exodus in a way that people of faith would embrace. After seeing the film, I must confess that my speculation/guess below was wrong. Although the acting, special effects, and settings were excellent and full of powerful nuance, the script’s portrayal of God and His interactions with Moses were deeply disappointing. Here is an excerpt from my official review of the film and a link to the full text of the review:
In Ridley Scott’s film, when the script isn’t portraying God as quasi-villainous or throwing little darts of critical questions and subtext at Heaven, it has Moses lecturing God and talking down to Him — literally. God, portrayed as a boy, looks small, sneering, and conniving in Moses’ oft-critical presence. The boy has a British accent, he comes off as calloused, and he’s often shouting orders at Moses. The Great I Am sounds more like one of those angry British youths who sang in that Pink Floyd song, “Another Brick In The Wall.” I was expecting God to break out in song at any moment with his thick English accent: “We don’t need no education…”
Exodus: Gods and Kings – Full Movie Review Here!
If you haven’t heard, Ridley Scott, the genius director behind movie masterpieces like Gladiator and Blade Runner, has adapted the Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus into an epic, larger-than-life movie starring Christian Bale as Moses. It comes out December 12, 2014.
This year’s turning out to be the Year of the Bible in Hollywood, with releases like Son of God, Heaven Is for Real, God’s Not Dead, Mom’s Night Out, The Perfect Wave starring Scott Eastwood (Clint Eastwood’s son), the ever-controversial Noah starring Russell Crowe (read my review of Noah here), and another movie called The Song, which is a modernized Walk the Line meets the Song of Solomon that comes out in September. (I’ve seen a preview screening of The Song already, and it’s amazing.)
And, almost like some kind of grand finale to close out Hollywood’s historical Year of the Bible, one of the greatest directors in movie history is applying his seasoned chops to one of the most legendary heroes in the Bible: Moses and the great Exodus.
And I believe this movie, unlike Aronofsky’s Noah, will be wholly embraced by Christians.
[Editor’s Note: Since the initial publication of this article earlier in the year, a controversy has arisen around Ridley Scott’s use of white actors in most of the lead roles, especially the Egyptian roles. In late August, Ridley Scott addressed this controversy here. In November, he addressed it again here. His comments, however, haven’t been enough to stop a few actors-activists from calling for a boycott of the film. Although I can understand the frustration — I have a friend who is a non-Caucasian actor in Hollywood, and sometimes he experiences some frustrating things in his auditions — it appears, according to his comments, that Ridley Scott chose his cast for purely economic reasons.
The Prince of Egypt Formula
However, some Christian moviegoers might criticize me and quickly point out, “Hey, wait, isn’t Ridley Scott an atheist?”
Three words: Prince of Egypt.
Remember that animated movie from Dreamworks that came out in 1998? It was a huge hit. It cost $70 million to make, and by the time it ended its theater run, it had made over $100 million, which was a nice chunk of change for films in the ’90s, and it went on to gross another $37 million in rentals. Every Christian family I knew owned it, and the film stayed faithful to the Biblical account.
And, as far as I know, none of the filmmakers behind Prince of Egypt were Christians, and I knew plenty of non-Christians who loved it and went to see it.
Ridley Scott, of course, is not making a cute animated family film. That’s not my point. What he is doing, however, is zooming in on the story of brotherhood between Moses and his half-brother Ramses, the same specific plot device that made Prince of Egypt resonate so effectively and broadly with millions of people, religious and non-religious alike.
Five (And a Half) Other Reasons Why “Exodus” Could Be a Hit for Christians
Here are five other reasons why I think Exodus will stay closer to the Bible than Noah:
1. Ridley Scott, in my opinion, does not have a history of injecting his private beliefs with the kind of aggression that we saw with Aronofsky in Noah. Scott has always struck me as a guy who just wants to tell a really good story and make a great work of cinematic art.
2. Moses and the Exodus is less open to reinterpretation and subversion compared to Noah. There are more details in the Bible, for one thing. Noah’s account has mysterious oddities like the Nephilim and the sons of God, which just beg for fantastical reinterpretation by artists with vivid imaginations.
3. The Exodus story is such a critical core to cultures — from the Ten Commandments in our judicial system to Judaism and its memorializing of the Exodus story every year during Passover — that it would, in my estimation, be much harder to get a script through Hollywood that desecrates the Exodus account. Noah, however, does not have the same place in our culture’s conscious of Political Correctness. People in non-Christian communities are more protective of the Moses story than they are of Noah — at least, that’s what I’ve seen in my friendships and associations with non-Christians over the years.
4. Although studios can be sneaky with what footage they select for trailers, by all accounts the first official trailer for Exodus depicts a film that follows the Biblical account closely. (Though I was surprised by the casting choices for the Egyptian roles.)
5. With each passing month in 2014, movie studios seem more and more eager to find a hit with the faith-based crowd. Even with the controversial Noah, Paramount eventually realized its error in marketing and released a statement that Noah was “inspired by” and not a direct adaptation of the Biblical account. And, from what I’ve personally seen and heard from publicists and studios, this renewed sensitivity to Christian moviegoers has only grown stronger since Noah came out.
5a. (Added 11/27/14) As noted in the updates at top, on 11/27/14, Variety published an interview with Ridley Scott in which he said that it’s time for Hollywood to stop bashing people of faith. This seems to be yet another sign that Exodus might be a faithful telling of the Moses story.
Why I’m Excited about “Exodus,” Despite the Atheism Issue
I’m particularly excited about the special effects. The glimpses in the trailer are jaw-dropping. They go well beyond the Heston classic The Ten Commandments. This live-action behemoth, guided by the deft hand of movie genius Ridley Scott, will most certainly take our breath away with its visuals and skillful storytelling.
But what about the whole atheist thing? This might anger some readers — though that’s not my intent — but just because someone’s an atheist or a non-Christian does not mean they can’t tell a fantastic story that honors the Biblical account. As I already mentioned, the filmmakers behind The Prince of Egypt (i.e. Steven Spielberg and company) were not Christians (as far as I know), and in those days in the ’90s, Hollywood was not as concerned about reaching out to the faith-based crowd like the studios are now. They simply saw a fantastic story in the Biblical account of Moses, and they wanted to tell it.
Ridley Scott seems to have the same mindset. He has exhibited a self-effacing — some might even say humble — humor about the fact that he’s an atheist making a Biblical epic. The irony has not been lost on him, in other words, and his comments so far have been a refreshing response compared to the stiff-arm that Darren Aronofsky offered to the “noisy” evangelical crowd, as Aronofsky called them.
For example, when asked about being an atheist who is making a Biblical epic, Ridley Scott said, “[that’s] actually good, because I’ve got to convince myself the story works.”
That made me laugh when I first read it. It was surprisingly refreshing to see a legendary director perceive the irony of his situation and poke fun at himself a little.
The Violence of “Exodus” Might Be a Concern
All of that being said, I suspect that this movie won’t be a family-friendly affair for all ages. According to comments from Christian Bale, it looks like the movie will focus on many of the battles and violent conflicts in the Exodus story.
The Passion of the Christ and its R-rated violence wasn’t exactly an all ages event either. My prediction is that Exodus will be a huge hit among Christian adults, but too mature for kids. (Plan to get a babysitter, in other words.)
Conclusion: “Exodus” is an Opportunity for Christians to Engage Our Culture
Ultimately, any film that handles Biblical material, even if it’s not accurate to the Bible or is some way disrespectful, is a wonderful opportunity for Christians to engage our culture. It’s a chance to go see a movie with our secular friends and have meaningful, respectful, fruitful conversations with them about our Biblical worldview.
And, if we know the Bible well, if we’re quicker to listen than to lecture, and if we stand up for our worldview with articulation but also with a spirit of love and sensitivity, our post-movie conversation could change another person’s life — even more so than the film that sparked the conversation.
I like how this article “Can an Atheist Make a Good Bible Movie?” by Brett McCracken from the Gospel Coalition puts it:
“Even if their adaption of a beloved text is less than faithful to the source material, I try to give the filmmaker the benefit of the doubt. If a source text is powerful enough (and the Bible fits that bill I think), it invariably inspires a variety of passionate perspectives and disparate interpretations…
“Christians assessing Bible films should certainly consider what’s ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ in the fact-checking sense. Even more, they should consider whether the films succeed as art that communicates something valuable; art that moves us; art that, in its very beauty, brings glory to God. In the best of both worlds we get films of both quality and accuracy. But given the choice between a mediocre filmmaker committed to accuracy and an exceptional filmmaker committed to beauty, I might be more interested in seeing the latter’s version of the Exodus story.”
Even if some controversy emerges about the content of Exodus: Gods and Kings, I plan to see it regardless and engage the culture around me in meaningful conversation about the Bible.
However, I strongly suspect that Christians are going to love Exodus: Gods and Kings. And that would certainly be a fantastic finale to Hollywood’s historic Year of the Bible.
[Update 11/29/14: The first review of the film, from Hollywood Reporter, is published online. Although it’s hard to see clearly through the reviewer’s personal views about the Bible, including his broad “Old Testament God of wrath” stereotypes, according to him “Exodus” mostly stays true to the Bible except for a scene where God appears to Moses in the form of an angry youth (why couldn’t there just be a voice from the flames in the bush as it is in the Bible?) — and what appears (not entirely sure) to be attempts to provide a more rational explanation (instead of supernatural) for two of the miracles in the Moses account, though the reviewer is not clear how the film portrays God’s role in those instances, so it’s too early to come to any firm conclusions. The reviewer says the film in general is spectacular, especially the special effects, though the script/plot flow has some weaknesses. There is no mention of how the Passover — the portion where the angel of death passes over, and the Jews smear the blood of the lamb on their doorposts to remain safe — is depicted, unfortunately, as that is one of the most important elements of the Exodus account, from a religious point of view. That’s something I’ll be looking for when I see the film and review it.
Update 11/27/14: Ridley Scott says that he has attempted to show respect to the Biblical text in his film and says it’s time for Hollywood to stop bashing people of faith. He also says he is agnostic (which is a change from years past when he described himself as atheist). He also finally addresses the “whitewashing” controversy with a direct answer about why he cast mostly white actors for the lead Egyptian roles. Full interview here.
Update 11/27/14: Christian Bale describes the film as a story about a revolution, which he says makes it relevant to any time period and any audience, and he describes the revolutionary Moses as being someone who would be hunted down by drones if he were alive today. Details here.
Update 11/13/14: Ridley Scott has cast a child to play the voice of God. Details here.
Update 11/3/14: Christian Bale, who plays Moses in the film “Exodus,” made comments calling Moses “barbaric” and “likely schizophrenic.” It is unclear if the film portrays Moses that way or if it was simply Bale’s personal opinion.]
With the recent comments by Christian bale calling Moses “schizophrenic and barbaric” and Ridley Scott’s own quotes saying that “he never believed the story of Moses” and is trying to remove God from his version of the exodus I’m curious if you are going to print a redaction to this piece? The exodus is open to reinterpretation when done by those who would remove God from the narrative just as any narrative in the Bible is. I’m have trouble reconciling the idea that painting Moses out to be a lunatic/murderer and removing God from the narrative will somehow make for a “good” movie for Christians, and somehow create a bridge to engage the secular community on the validity of the claims made in scripture. The need to be culturally relative cannot replace truth. When it does, truth becomes subjective and christianity has no more to offer than any other religion, because when truth is subjective everything is true. This is one people will just be better saving their $40 bucks for movie tickets on.
Just saw Bale’s comments this morning as well. It’s not clear, however, if that is simply Bale’s personal view or if it reflects the screenplay’s depiction of Moses. Also, I have not read anything about Scott trying to “remove” God from the narrative. Can you provide a link to the article that has the director saying that? I’d be curious to read that. My overall impression was that, even though he doesn’t believe in God, he thinks the Exodus narrative is a good story and simply wants to tell it because it interests him as a filmmaker. Of course, I personally believe the Exodus is far more than simply a good story. It’s history, and it’s an account of God initiating a relationship with people in a profound way. But my point is this: even though he is an atheist, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to cut God out of the narrative, especially considering that the miracles are depicted in the film, and clearly God is behind the miracles. We take for granted how well known the Exodus story is. I have secular friends who know the Exodus story, despite having never grown up in church, and they all completely accept the story’s inclusion of God in it, simply because that’s “how the story goes.” Even they would think it odd if Scott cut God out of the Exodus story, so I doubt very much that Scott has tried to make that dramatic of a change. As far as redacting, my article above is simply my best guess about what will happen with this movie. I have not seen the movie nor have I read the script. If my guess above is wrong, and the movie really is subversive and intentionally hostile toward the Biblical narrative, then it just means my guess is wrong, and I will explain as much in my official review of the film after I see it. That does not warrant a redaction of this article; I’m merely offering my best guess! In regards to using films to build a bridge in reaching out to people: a film doesn’t have to be a mirror image of your worldview for you to use it as a conversation tool to point others to the truth. I believe in absolute truth, that Jesus is the only way, and I find postmodernism morally repugnant. But I’ve seen people use overtly postmodernistic films as conversation starters to discuss the flaws of postmodernism, which then opens doors to a conversation about why I believe the absolute truth claims of Christ. If this Exodus movie ends up being an intellectually dishonest character assassination of Moses and/or of God, then in my review I will note that, and I won’t be giving some warm approval of it. But I think a common error that we make is to quickly express scathing judgments about a film that we haven’t yet seen. At this point it’s all guesswork, just like my article above is a guess. Yeah, Bale’s comments make me think that my guess might be wrong, but we don’t know for sure yet if that’s just his personal opinion or if the film actually portrays Moses that way. I plan on seeing this film because it opens the door for me to talk about the Bible with people. I can say, “Yeah the special effects of the waters parting were amazing, but the movie actually really missed it on its portrayal of God, and here’s why. And let me go a step further: let me give you my testimony about my own relationship with God and how Jesus has changed my life.” I think we need more conversations like that. I don’t fault Christians for refusing to spend money on tickets for movies that denigrate the Bible. I’ve boycotted movies before. But when movies like this come out — movies that use the Bible as source material — I personally think that Christians like yourself who feel strongly about your beliefs and feel confident in articulating them SHOULD see movies like this so that you can explain to others the difference between the movie’s vision of the Bible and what the Bible’s message — in its entirety from Genesis to Revelation — actually is. Like you, I’m sick of atheists taking Biblical content and arrogantly warping it into something that fits their worldview — even twisting the facts or stating speculative interpretation as fact. I’ve seen religious study professors blatantly lie about what the Bible actually says simply to bolster their arguments. As angering as that can be, and as much as Bale’s recent comments make me suspicious that Exodus might be going down that road, we simply don’t know for sure yet if Exodus is doing that. We’ll find out on December 12.
I read your article with interest and agree that Scott’s film should be judged on its merits (once it appears in theaters) rather than on the comments of those who worked on the film. However, I take issue with a few of your points. For instance, you state:
“People in non-Christian communities are more protective of the Moses story than they are of Noah.”
Maybe, but that didn’t stop Cecil B. DeMille or DreamWorks from making major changes to the plot lines and characterizations. And, for the most part, audiences bought into whatever was placed on the screen, whether it reflected the Biblical text or not. Just ask someone whether Moses’ little ark was stuck into some reeds at the bank of the Nile or if it floated along until it came to some bathing Egyptians. Current understandings of many today have been shaped perhaps as much from those films as from the Biblical text.
“…in those days in the ’90s, Hollywood was not as concerned about reaching out to the faith-based crowd like the studios are now.”
The evidence is to the contrary. DreamWorks made a concerted effort to reach out to many different faith communities, even going so far as to have several different viewing guides on its related web site so the audience members could pick and choose the one more closely associated with their views. DeMille’s team also made a concerted effort to involve representative of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities. Those efforts seem to have paid off– for both films. I have not seen any evidence that those behind Exodus: Gods and Kings have made any kind of similar effort. Time will tell as to whether that was the right move.
Scott,
You make some really insightful points. After reading your point about the DreamWorks plot changes and how audiences still hold incorrect perceptions of the text because of that, I’d have to say you’re exactly right. In my article above I was overlooking that and underestimating the power of these films to perpetuate myths about what the text actually says in some of less obvious details. I also see your point about how DreamWorks did extensive outreach to faith communities while, as far as we can tell, Ridley Scott has done nothing.
Also, the more I think about Christian Bale’s comments, the more of a sinking feeling I get that, most likely, Ridley Scott is focusing on the sovereign punishments that God enacted through Moses and making Moses — and God — out to be something that He is most definitely not when His actions in the Old Testament are studied in the context of the entire
Bible. I guess we’ll find out in several weeks. My tone now is less hopeful than the sunny optimism I felt when I first wrote the article above.
Anyways, thanks for the insightful comments.
An interesting article, and one that I fear you will regret writing once the movie comes out. Nevertheless, it could be that the film is faithful enough to the Biblical account that Christians and Jews will be able to forgive the changes and enjoy it for what it’s worth (much like Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments). Still, I prefer movies that are based on Bible stories and/or Biblical principles to be mostly consistent with what the Bible actually says, and it doesn’t sound like this movie is going to do that. Too many dramatic liberties turn me off from a movie like this. But we’ll see what happens when the movie actually comes out.
In the meantime, I know you are only talking about feature-film releases, but for anyone interested in a movie about Moses that is mostly true to the Biblical text, features good special effects, and some excellent acting and direction, I highly recommend the 1995 Tv-movie Moses starring Ben Kingsley as Moses. It also features Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, and, in my favorite bit of casting trivia, David Suchet and Geraldine McEwan as Aaron and Miriam, respectively. (That’s Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple).
Wow, Ben Kingsley?! That does sound like a movie worth watching. I will have to check that out. Thanks for the tip. Fascinating about Suchet and McEwan! It’s often surprising to see what actors have in their filmographies.
The more I hear about Ridley Scott’s film, the more I suspect that my optimistic speculation about it will be wrong (unfortunately).
Ben Kingsley plays Ramses in this new film. This is an interesting casting choice based on this aforementioned information.
Great point, Candace. I wish Ridley Scott would sit down for a more in-depth interview to tell us more about his reasoning behind the casting decisions for this movie. His casting choices have definitely caught the attention of a lot of people.
I forgot about the film with Ben Kingsley playing Moses. He is great actor.
This looks like s very good film. I wasn’t a fan of “Noah”. I think this one looks better and will appeal to more Christians.
Just a gentle correction…Ben Kingsley plays Nun (Joshua’s father) in “Exodus: Gods and Kings”. He is the one who tells Moses about his true identity. Australian actor Joel Edgerton plays Ramesses II in the film. He certainly looks the part. He looks like he did a great job with it, as well, from all that I have seen.
Good catch! Kingsley plays Nun, that’s right. That’s cool about that clip you saw that confirms they depict the lamb’s blood, etc. That’s encouraging! I agree, this movie will likely be at least a little bit closer to the Biblical account than Aronofsky’s Noah was earlier this year. Noah was also a total subversion of the Noah story into a treatise for environmentalism. I’m doubtful that Exodus will have any kind of subversion to an obviously modern political issue like Noah did. We’ll see. It’ll be interesting to see what Scott does with it. I think most Christians will agree (me included, and you as well, I’m sure), that there are certain nuances in the Biblical story of Moses that a person will easily miss unless they truly believe in it on a personal level and have thus spent years studying how the Moses account adds to the big-picture story of the Bible — which, from a Christian’s perspective, is all about God preparing the world for His Son’s appearance, the “Lamb of God” and who is symbolized very clearly in the Exodus story. There are so many connections and shadows/types in the Exodus story that pave the way for an understanding of Jesus. So, I’m not fooling myself into thinking that Ridley Scott will purposefully seize upon those details to highlight some of those inspiring, fascinating nuances that a Christian director would point out. But I agree with you, Exodus looks better than Noah (as far as Biblical accuracy) and will appeal to more Christians. And, wow, it will be exciting to see a Biblical story portrayed with such amazing production value and special effects. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. This whole debate will return to the Internet when Scott finishes his adaptation of the Biblical story of King David! Ridley Scott is in a Bible mood lately, apparently.
“There is no mention of how the Passover — the portion where the angel of death passes over, and the Jews smear the blood of the lamb on their doorposts to remain safe — is depicted, unfortunately, as that is one of the most important elements of the Exodus account, from a religious point of view. That’s something I’ll be looking for when I see the film and review it”.
Kevin, one of the featurettes I saw had a scene with blood being smeared on the doorposts. I don’t know if they included it in the film or not (I am assuming they did), but I definitely saw a clip of it. I don’t know whether the Angel of Death was included, either.
I should have put this with my other post, instead of doing two of them…sorry!
Hi Kevin,
Here is the link to the featurette I was talking about. This is the best of the ones I have seen. It sold me on the film.
I have heard that much of the film sticks pretty closely to the Bible. There was some thought that Ridley was including some “scientific” explanations for some of the events shown in the film, but I don’t think that is the case. I agree that he may not get all of the nuances, but it looks like he did his best to interpret events as ones ordained by God. That is fine with me! Many times directors want to add so much to a film to make it marketable that it conveludes the what it’s main message/focus is. I think reviews will be mixed on this one. There was some good moments in “Noah”, but also some dramatic license that was taken that didn’t work for me. “Exodus” won’t be perfect, but I think it might be more true to form than “Noah” was. Yes, Ridley Scott is in a bible mood. He is working on the story of King David, which right now he is producing (not directing). But, it is the same group that did Exodus.
Thanks for the link! Definitely agree with all your conclusions there, especially this: “I agree that he may not get all of the nuances, but it looks like he did his best to interpret events as ones ordained by God. That is fine with me!”
Ridley Scott describes his self as agnostic not atheist…at least in all the articles I have read.
Oh sorry I tried to edit my comment but could not.
I just read the article where he refers to himself as atheist… Must be a new development.
You’re definitely right, for as long as I could remember he used the word “atheist” to describe himself, and then, yeah, just recently — like just a few days ago when his latest interview was published — he switched to “agnostic.” It threw me off too. I did a double-take when I was reading it.
First and most importantly, taking a Biblical story and manipulating it to suit the secular world, goes directly against God and the Bible’s teachings. If the director wants to share the cool story of the miracles by God delivered through Moses, deliver it all. But that shows God’s existence in full and scares atheists so they change the storyline to fit their agenda.
Secondly, enough with the racism. He chose actors with high billing names. Perhaps the racism is that a white man isn’t allowed to portray an Egyptian…in a country where the president,the attorney General, and 2/3 of the government are black- stop labeling this land racist. Enough.
To be clear, I was not “labeling this land racist.” I do agree with you in that sense: far too many people in this country still throw the race card without thinking twice — almost like a knee-jerk reaction — and even after our country continues to elect minorities to high positions in both parties, there still seems to be this assumption of racism behind every action. So, in that general sense, I agree with you there. But I certainly wasn’t labeling Ridley Scott a racist. I don’t know him personally, so I’m not in an informed position to judge his motivations behind things. The point of this article was to provide news about the movie. The issue of his casting choices became headline news for several months — and still is — so I included it in this article for the purpose of news, not to call anybody a racist. My comment in my article about my actor friend was just to show how some actors get frustrated. My friend wasn’t necessarily calling Scott a racist. Not at all. He was just frustrated with the way Hollywood works. And Ridley Scott made the same point as you: it was purely an economic decision.
Also, one more point (in reply to Kelley), I wrote/published this article months ago, in July, before many Christians knew about this film coming out. My hope was to follow it closely to see if it WOULD stick to the Bible’s account and be faithful to the message of the Bible. But this article is pure speculation — and very optimistic speculation at that. I have not seen the film and have no idea if it stays true to the Bible or not. My point in this article was to show that the odds are higher that Ridley Scott will make a more Biblically-accurate movie compared to what Aronofsky did with Noah. But buying movie tickets IS like voting for something. So if, after reading a detailed review of Exodus, you feel outraged by how Ridley Scott has portrayed the Bible, then by all means avoid buying movie tickets for it. That’s one way to get your voice heard. That’s partly why I write movie reviews — so that people like yourself can make informed decisions about whether to “vote” for a movie or not by going to see it. I’ll be publishing my review of Exodus in a week and a half.
Two words for this film. TOTAL CRAP
Bob, did you see the film, yet? If you did what were your impressions of it that you thought it was “total crap”?
I am still looking forward to seeing it, but that is me. I will be able to make an informed judgement after that.
I can’t comprehend how people think that Egyptians are black.Its an arabic country.If people want realism make them talk in paleo Hebrew and Egyptian with subtitles in the language of the country you watch it in.Should it all be filmed in Eygpt to.How many times in historical movies do we see jesus the Romans talk in heavy english from England accents.I am so tired of color being brought into everything under the sun. The bigger problem is the director who went out of his way to find out if it were possible to split the red sea.After He read or heard somewhere that an earthquake caused it once.He then felt ok to make the scene in the movie. I would not pay one penny to finance this movie.They count on your average worldly Christian to go to see it just because of a biblical name.The most biblical account of moses not perfect but the best was made by a Ted Turner of all things financed studio called Moses.With white guy Ben Kinsgley as Moses.TBN when they make biblical movies usually succumb to adding stuff in the sake of entertainment.My advice watch it on Netflix if at all.
Dennis: that would have been interesting if they did try to film the movie in those ancient languages and with subtitles for the audience. (Though I realize you were only mentioning that to make a broader point.) I think Mel Gibson was on to something when he filmed with original languages in Passion and in Apocalypto. It created a very powerful atmosphere in the film. But I see your general point, that sometimes our culture’s perceptions of what realism is is actually just as untrue as whatever the culture is complaining about in a movie like this.
>>I can’t comprehend how people think that
>>Egyptians are black.Its an arabic country.
Er, not quite, Bob – that is the whole debate.
Egypt has only been Arabic since the Muslim invasions of the 7th century AD. Before that it was Greek from the 4th century BC. And before that it was Babylonian-Persian, from the 7th century BC.
The question is – what were the Egyptian people like in the 13th century BC, which is supposed to be the era of Moses. And how much ‘dilution’ of the native population has there been since? With most invasions, it is only the aristocracy who change, not the people.
One thing we know for sure, is that Moses and the Israelites were not black, as there are no real black Jews today. But what about other Egyptians? They don’t seem very black today, do they?
Also, Joseph married an Egyptian, and his progeny don’t seem too black. And if you look at the mummies of the pharaohs, you do not see any black phenotypes. Queen Tiye has long red hair, while Nefertiti is – well – Greek. I had a Greek girlfriend who looked exactly like this:
http://svetlanaart.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Nefertiti-Bust-1145×822.jpg
Ralph
Really interesting points, Ralph, thanks for illuminating that issue. It does seem like our modern culture has its own stereotypes about what we think of as an ancient Egyptian, and some of the media outlets feed those stereotypes without looking at some of the nuances that you pointed out.
Im black , and I don’t care about the colour of the actors. All I care about is that the film gives glory to god. But with most non -christian directors, they seem to portray god the father/aka jesus, as violent and bad, without knowing the full context.
p.s moses 2nd wife was an ethiopian.
Christopher: I agree with you — great points. And, unfortunately, I have a feeling that this one might be doing the same thing: portraying God as violent/bad without knowing or relating the full context. I just have a sneaking suspicion that Exodus will do that on a subtle level — though I’ll find out for sure when the film finally comes out in a few days.
Indeed. But I feel that African history has become a politico-cultural issue, where various firebrands are claiming the entire continent for their own.
.
And regards the Exodus, I am strongly in favour of the contention that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus. They are the same in every detail, except for date.
.
In addition, Josephus Flavius (Judaism’s greatest chronicler) says exactly the same thing – that the Israelites were the Hyksos. This is conveniently forgotten in modern Judaism, as they have a desire to portray themselves as the underdogs who were whipped by the evil Egyptians, rather than the Hyksos, who were rather powerful and were very Egyptianised (and largely polytheistic).
.
But this is what the Torah says. Judaic sages like to pretend that the Israelites were not connected to Egyptian culture. But Joseph married the high priest of Heliopolis’ daughter, Asanath, and became prime minister and high priest of Heliopolis (the colored robe). There is no way he could do this without speaking Egyptian and honoring the the Egyptian gods in some fashion. Hence all the altars that Solomon built, to honour pagan gods.
R
African history has definitely become a politico-cultural issue. I took a Black Studies course at my UC, and even the black professor there was annoyed by how African history has become something that people use for their own purposes.
In regards to Hyksos: I personally believe the Hebrew Exodus (and the Hebrew people themselves) was exactly what the Torah says it was — but that’s another topic/debate for another day. I’ve read Josephus, and although his work is obviously extremely important and helpful to modern historians, I see the Torah as being a higher authority. I realize that opinion is a contentious one to some, but that’s my belief.
Your points bring up some other (slightly unrelated) topics in my mind, however. I don’t know anything about what Judaic sages like or dislike to do, but the Torah certainly does mention the Hebrews integrating themselves deeply into Egyptian culture and it makes Joseph’s integration into Egypt clear. Although I’d say that the Hebrews were definitely underdogs in many situations in their history. I’m not sure they “like” to portray themselves that way; that’s just how it has been in many cases, in my opinion.
Though, ironically, with God on their side (during the times when they were in good relationship with God), they should never have seen themselves as underdogs or given into fear like they did when God first brought them to the Promised Land, and the ten spies came back with a fearful report and believed that God was not powerful enough to give them the Promised Land.
But, as far the influence of paganism in Hebrew history, the Torah’s perspective — and the Christian’s — sees it as, at its very core, a spiritual issue that is common to all people: that we all have a tendency in our hearts to resist God and pursue “other gods” — anything we can get our hands on and worship as an idol, whether it’s money, a career, a person, secular wisdom, etc. to avoid a relationship with God (and when I say God, I mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus) and all of the obligations that would come with it.
There is a saying among theologians that God had an easier time getting the Hebrews out of Egypt than He did getting Egypt out of the Hebrews — but that is meant in a spiritual sense. He was speaking about their hearts and about the fallen condition of human nature in general, that there was a divorce between the human race and its Creator in the beginning, and the reverberations have rippled throughout all generations and all races. This is the core reason behind Solomon’s idolatry — and Solomon, of course, lived hundreds of years after the Exodus, and by then Israel had already fallen into idolatry with other pagan nations that were its neighbors. The Hebrews, in my opinion, simply gave into temptation. There were many things about the pagan religions that surrounded them that would have had an appealing quality. I don’t think they needed any distant connection to Egypt to stumble into idolatry (although the influence of Egypt those 400 years didn’t help either, as far as building a foundational tendency to chase after foreign gods).
But by the time Solomon came, I suspect that the Egyptian influence had long been taken out by the Law and by mighty prophets and kings — particularly King David — who worked over-time to get rid of pagan influence. But that didn’t stop new temptations from entering the picture (like the Baal religion, which eventually became a huge headache for God as He tried over and over again to persuade Israel to stop worshiping Baal, often to no effect).
Solomon was taught the Law, that he should never worship any other god, yet his relationships and affections for his foreign wives weakened his commitment to his core principles. And the Torah’s point is that even the wisest man in the world could not stay faithful in his heart to God — “we like sheep have all gone astray” as the Scripture says. The explanation for Solomon’s actions have more to do, in my opinion, with the general condition of the human heart.
From a Christian’s point of view that is the grand narrative of the history between God’s chosen people and God — that humanity cannot redeem itself and restore a right relationship with God by works (by perfectly keeping the Law) or by wisdom alone. Israel’s repeated stumbling into idolatry teaches that we are all, in the core of our hearts, susceptible to the same basic problem, and we each need the Messiah (Jesus), the only one who is able to repair the broken relationship between our individual hearts and the heart of God — though how and why Jesus is able to do that is another topic that I can’t do justice to in this comment.
But, as I mentioned, that is a major tangent to what you were talking about. But, from my point of view — as a Christian who believes the Bible was divinely inspired and shaped by God to communicate certain truths — the broader issue of humanity’s divorce from its Creator, which originally was meant to be an intimate, fruitful, collaborative relationship, is the more important context (in my opinion) for Israel’s idolatry and its repeated violations of the Law when it practiced pagan religions.
Though the Hebrews definitely had an intimate relationship with Egyptian society. I definitely agree there. The Torah mentions that Joseph is second only to Pharaoh, which is an incredibly high ranking, so he had clearly adopted Egyptian culture as his own. As you pointed out, he would have had to absorb Egyptian customs in order to reach such a high position. But, and this is another tangent, Joseph pre-dates the giving of the Law. So Joseph lived at a time when God had not brought His chosen people — the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — into the formal covenant of the Law. But still, Joseph’s deep integration into Egypt did have far-reaching effects. The Hebrews had to do a lot of work (in their hearts, minds, culture) to pull themselves out of that influence and return back to the basic revelation of the One True God and the covenant that their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had with the Most High.
While the Bible may be more descriptive with the events of the exodus from Egypt than the myth of Noah (Gilgamesh), archaeological evidence suggests it is no less a work of fiction. This being said, a rational person can not complain when such liberties taken. There are rarely complaints when a morally corrupt aspect of the story is removed, but throw in a rock monster and look out!
Brent, I would disagree with your claim that the “archaeological evidence suggests [the Exodus] is no less a work of fiction.” Based on your comment I will assume that you subscribe to the minimalist school of biblical archaeology. Modern archaeological discoveries continue to side with the maximalist school, and there is anti-religious bias in the minimalist school. For those reasons I don’t find the minimalist view point reliable.
Archaeologist Dr. Bryant and Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen — and others that I’ll mention below — would disagree with your conclusion about Exodus. I have taken a published research paper on the subject and placed some of its excerpts below — especially findings from Bryant and Kitchen’s published research, as well as other scholars like archaeologist Randall Price and archaeologist Manfred Bietak, who excavated Rameses (Tell el-Dab’a):
1. If the event of the Exodus is correctly dated back to 1450 BCE, which is the approximate date that the Bible gives for the Exodus, the archaeological data supports the Biblical account in the following ways:
A. The documented evidence of foreign slaves in Egypt at that time, in 1450 BCE, show numbers that would match the population of Hebrew slaves described in the Bible.
B. Archaeological evidence of the destruction of Canaanite cities 40 years later (1490 BCE) match the Biblical account of Joshua’s conquests, which occurred 40 years after the Exodus.
2. Minimalists claim that the Exodus never occurred because there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. Recent satellite infrared technology, however, has discovered evidence that greatly weakens that claim. George Stephen, a satellite-image analyst, discovered evidence in the satellite photographs of ancient tracks made by “a massive number of people” going “from the Nile Delta straight south along the east bank of the Gulf of Suez and around the tip of the Sinai Peninsula.” He also saw huge campsites along the route, one that fits the description given in the book of Exodus.
3. In the events preceding the Exodus, the book of Genesis states that Joseph’s brothers sold him for 20 shekels to slave traders. Joseph then went with the slave traders from Canaan to Egypt (Gn 37:28). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes the flaws in the logic of those who reject the Biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is the price of a slave in the Near East in about the 18th century BCE. Basically, if all these figures were invented during the Exile (sixth century BCE) or in the Persian period by some fiction writer, why isn’t the price for Joseph 90 to 100 shekels, the cost of a slave at the time when that story was supposedly written? Therefore, it is much more rational to assume that the Biblical data reflect reality in these cases.
4. The date of the Exodus can be accurately calculated since the Bible mentions in 1 Kings 6:1 that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was “the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt.” Surprisingly, there is scholarly agreement about the dates of Solomon’s reign, placing his fourth year in the 960s BCE. Subtracting 480 years takes us back to a date for the Exodus in the 1440s BCE.
5. Another Biblical reference used to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Jgs 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 BCE. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 BCE, 40 years after the Exodus. Therefore, both Biblical dates for the Exodus agree.
6. Minimalists cite the mention of the Israelites’ building of the city of Rameses (Ex 1:11) as evidence against the Exodus. But the problem is that many minimalist archaeologists assume the city of Rameses was named after Rameses II, a famous Pharaoh who was a great builder. Yet the term Rameses simply means “born of the god Ra” (or Re) and had been used in monuments centuries before the time of Pharaoh Rameses II. The Bible itself mentions the same name when it speaks of Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt, hundreds of years before the reign of Rameses II: “So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed (Gn 47:11).” The argument, therefore, that Moses lived in the 1200s because the Israelites helped build a city with the name Rameses is not convincing. Manfred Bietak, the excavator of Rameses (Tell el-Dab’a), has determined that the name of the site at the time the Israelites were there was at first Rowaty, and then later changed to Avaris. The name Rameses was not used until the city was rebuilt by Rameses II in the 13th century. Thus the use of the name Rameses in Exodus 1:11 and Genesis 47:11 is a case where a later Biblical writer updated the text to reflect the changed name of the city, as we see in some other Biblical passages. We have the same situation with regard to Pithom, the other store city named in Exodus 1:11. That name was not in use until the Saite Period, ca. 600 BCE.
7. Minimalists claim that there is archaeological evidence that no sedentary population lived in the Transjordan and Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 BCE. The second argument against the traditional date for the Exodus is based mainly on the work of archaeologist Nelson Glueck in the 1930s, which failed to find evidence of permanent settlements in the Transjordan and the Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 BCE. This region should have shown a sizable presence of Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites at that time, since the Biblical account mentions their strong opposition to the Israelites. However, modern excavations have shown many settlements in the area that Glueck did not find. Archaeologist John Bimson notes that Glueck’s initial conclusions were definitely wrong — in fact, Glueck later retracted them. Yet the minimalist school and their scholars cite them as if they were still valid evidence. In other words, the 13th century date for the Exodus has been perpetuated by the baseless repetition of outdated views.
8. The minimalists have another argument that leads them to incorrectly date the Exodus to the 1200s BCE. They use the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan. Yet, if the traditional 1400s date — 1450 BCE — for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence fits much better; destruction levels in Canaanite cities such as Hazor and Jericho also date to the 1400s. If Joshua conquered Canaan after 1400, this would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Jos 13:1; Jgs 3:1–6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process. Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes: “The signs of widespread destruction at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the Biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest [by Joshua]. These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace.”
Also, in regards to finding signs of the people traveling, it is important to remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment, every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3,400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.
In general (on the general subject of the minimalist school), professor and archaeologist Anson Rainey says this:
“Their view that nothing in Biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period [538-332 BCE], especially their denial of the existence of a United Monarchy [under Saul, David and Solomon], is a figment of their vain imagination…Biblical scholarship and instruction should completely ignore the ‘deconstructionist school.’ They have nothing to teach us.”
The maximalists, on the other hand, believe the Biblical accounts have solid historical and archaeological backing. The number of scholars who are switching to the maximalist school is growing. It seems that every year discoveries are found that support, rather than refute, the Biblical narrative.
Also — just one more point about Egypt and the Exodus — it has been clearly demonstrated that ancient Egypt preferred to expunge embarrassing moments in its history. For example, Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut. She ruled before him, and he despised her. Years later, ruling priests eliminated any traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, because he had introduced things that they considered to be heretical. It shouldn’t shock us that Egypt would do anything in its power to remove any official record in their documents of the humiliation they experienced at the hands of the Hebrews when the Exodus occurred in 1450 BCE. That tendency in humanity still exists today. People today debate certain events from WWII or even try to expunge recent history using disinformation. There are even people who deny that the Holocaust occurred.
The story of Noah may not entirely be a fabrication. It is, in fact a copy of the Egyptian creation myth.
In Egypt, the Ark of Ra sailed across the cosmic waters of Nu, carrying pairs of animals (pairs of gods). And the Phoenix went out and discovered (or was born from) the first Primaeval Mound that formed within the waters of Nu.
It is from the waters of Nu that Nuah was derived, and from the Phoenix that the dove was derived.
Ralph
The presence of a prior flood story does not mean it is not a fabrication. It may confirm it as a plagiarism, but it does not confirm it as true. There are many flood myths among ancient cultures.The story of Noah actually bares a much closer resemblance to the older Epic of Gilgamesh (by resemblance I mean blatant copy).
There is little doubt the story of Noah is a fairy tale. Archeological and geological evidence for the described event would be overwhelming, yet it is non-existent. This isn’t taking into account the actual described acts, food level, populations…
“There is little doubt the story of Noah is a fairy tale.” Disagree with you. Here are a couple reasons why:
The fact that so many flood stories with common similarities exist in historical records from all over the globe — from China’s ancient history to ancient Greece — is evidence in itself that a global flood event occurred.
Regarding Gilgamesh: yes, Gilgamesh is dated before Moses, who was the first Hebrew who put the Genesis account of the Flood in writing. But making an assertion that Gilgamesh is therefore the source document is problematic, in my opinion. The Hebrew line dates much further back in history than Moses. The Bible states that the Flood story was passed down through the patriarchs, who pre-dated Gilgamesh by a long shot. We know that the ancient Hebrews relied on oral tradition. This would make the Genesis account — which is treated as an historical document, even by many liberal scholars — older than the Sumerian account of Gilgamesh, which is treated as mythology. It is definitely a popular theory in our day that the Hebrews allegedly plagiarized from the Babylonians. No proof has been offered to support this theory. But the substantial differences in the religious, ethical, and the vast amount of details — and the depth of the Hebrew line — make it very improbable, in my opinion, that the Biblical account was reliant on any Sumerian source.
As far as geological evidence: if the Biblical account of a global flood were true, then it would mean the ocean covered the continents. Geological strata and the marine fossils contained in them absolutely do provide evidence that the ocean once covered all of the continents. The widespread strata blankets argue for a global flood. The Sauk Sequence stretches from North America to Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence stretches across North America and parts of Europe and Africa. The intercontinental redbed sequences and coal-bearing strata cycles also make the case for an unusual global flood event.
Thanks for the expansive reply. I appreciate the thought you have put into it, but I have read similar documents filled with evidence that supports the opposite view. I have read many more that point out dozens of other fabrications and contradictions. I have even read that Egyptians weren’t afraid of embarrassing history and modern archeologists side with the “it never happened” theory. I am not an expert, nor do I wish to get into a detailed religious debate as I feel this is moot when I believe the entire belief system can be dismissed using reason and logic alone.
Brent, thank you for sharing your thoughts and for your honest opinion about what you believe. Although I’d disagree (as you’d expect) with the “reason and logic” assertion, I will respect your wishes and not push the topic/debate any further (though I did reply to the Noah comment, but I did so before seeing this comment from you). Thanks again for your comments and thoughtful responses. All the best!
I am somewhat of a scholar on the subject of the Exodus. The movie may be entertaining, but like all the other portrayals, the Jews weren’t in Egypt during the New Kingdom. Moses and Rameses were never brothers, along with dozens of other misunderstandings about the Exodus account found in the Bible. Please get the book THE RIDDLE OF THE EXODUS by James Long. Extremely enlightening on the true story of the Biblical account of the Exodus.
The Bible never claims that Moses and Rameses were brothers. Hollywood started that whole narrative — the cozy fraternal bond between the two — to give their films a greater narrative effect.
One thing we can be certain of, and that is, the ‘Gods and Kings’ movie will not even come close to depicting either the facts or the message of the Exodus narrative.
For example, will the movie show Moses as having aged 40 years from the time he fled Egypt, was married with children (Exodus 2:15-22) and a shepherd for 40 years in the land of Midian before God giving him the commission to appear before Pharaoh along with Aaron his brother? And will it show that when Moses returned to Egypt he returned with his family as stated at Exodus 4:20, “Then Moses took his wife and his sons and lifted them onto a donkey, and he started back to the land of Egypt, Moreover, Moses took the rod of the true God in his hand.”
The article states: “What he is doing (Scott), however, is zooming in on the story of brotherhood between Moses and his half-brother Ramses.” If the movie depicts Ramses as Moses half-brother then it is incorrect (and incidentally, neither was Moses and orphan — as I read in one preview of the movie about a month ago). Moses was not a blood relative (thus no half-brother status) of the Egyptian royalty. He was at the most the adoptive son of Pharaoh’s daughter.
From the account, at Exodus 2:5-10, after finding Moses, Pharaoh’s daughter agrees with Moses’ sister to call a Hebrew nursing woman. And as the account says in Exodus 2:10: “Pharaoh’s daughter said to her: ‘GO!’ At once the girl went and called the child’s (Moses’) mother. Pharaoh’s daughter then said to her [Moses’ mother]: ‘Take this child with you and nurse him for me, and I will pay you.’ So the woman [Moses’ own mother] took the child and nursed him.” And of course, later, he was given to Pharaoh’s daughter.
As to a so-called “brotherhood” between Ramses and Moses …first of all, the Bible never identifies either the Pharaoh of the Bible’s Exodus account, nor the names of any siblings in Pharaoh’s household when Moses was a child growing up as the “son of the daughter of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:10).
The apostle Paul (himself an Israelite) wrote at Hebrews 11:23-25 “By faith Moses was hid by his parents (his natural Hebrew parents) for three months after his birth, because they saw that the young child was beautiful and they did not fear the order of the king (Pharaoh). By faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing to be mistreated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin.
So it seems that Moses actually abandoned any Egyptian luxuries and lived among his own people as a fellow slave even before he fled the country after killing the Egyptian and realizing he had been discovered.
And upon his return to Egypt 40 years later at God’s direction, it is stated at Exodus 4:19 “After that, God said to Moses in Midian: “Go, return to Egypt because the men who were seeking to kill you are dead.” The fact that upon Moses appearing before Pharaoh, and no one in the royal house or among the priest recognizing him gives weight to the fact that when he return, he was a stranger to the Egyptians …including any supposed ‘brotherhood’ character.
In another point of inaccuracy, the written preview I read a month ago about the movie made this statement: “An Israelite orphan raised by the Egyptian royal family, Moses is chosen by God to lead 600,000 Israelite slaves out of Egypt.”
The ‘orphan’ designation has already been addressed.
As to leading out 600,000 slaves – that figure is incorrect. Immediately after the crossing of the Red Sea, the Bible account in the book of Numbers 1-46, God told Moses (verse 2) to take a census of the Israelites ‘according to their families and paternal house.’ In verse 3 it is made clear exactly WHO would be counted … “those from 20 years old and up WHO CAN SERVE IN THE ARMY OF ISRAEL.” Verses 20-46 clarifies that census even more by stating the census of each tribe individual tribe: “All the MALES from 20 year old and up …”
Later in the Bible it is revealed that military age was 20-40 years old. In Numbers 2:46 the TOTAL number of the MALES ONLY from 20-40 is given as 603,550. It might also be noted that at Exodus 12:37, that verse says, in speaking about the departure of the Israelites from Egypt: “600,000 MEN on foot, BESIDES children (and of course their mothers, and men not counted as part of the 600,000 military census fro 20-40 years old, etc.)”
Since these 600,000 men had wives children and in-laws, etc. If we just attribute a very conservative estimate of just three relatives to each male between 20-40 (military age), then we get a figure of (including the male and 3 family member) 4 x 600,000 to equal 2.4 million persons that left Egypt.
But there is more. Going back to Exodus 12:37 mentioned above, we read in verse 38: “And a VAST MIXED COMPANY also went with them (that is with the entire nation of Israel), as well as flocks and herds, a great number of livestock. This “vast MIXED company” were Egyptians and perhaps those of other nations that may have served as slaves in Egypt.
So realistically, from the information given in the Scriptures there could well have been 3-5 million that left Egypt. And they did not leave Egypt as a confused, disorganized group. The Bible at Exodus 13:18 says: “But it was in battle formation that the sons of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt.” The idea that Almighty God, a God of supreme order, would have his people traveling in some chaotic, disorganized fashion is unthinkable.
Chapter 2 of the book of Numbers gives the organized way the nation of Israel traveled and camped during the 40 years before they entered the land of Canaan.
The movie will no doubt be more than visually entertaining. Unfortunately since there is no true appreciation for the spiritual aspects of the message of either the Bible as whole or the Exodus account as it is related in the Scriptures, don’t expect anything but a high diluted version to appeal to those want to be entertained. And I can visualize the ‘Spaniard’ Gladiator standing outside the movies theaters as patrons exist exclaiming: “Were you not entertained”.
When it comes to the Bible and Hollywood, it is best to read the Bible first. Then, at least, one can know how much of what is viewed on the screen is faithful to the text or not, and usually most of it is not!
Excellent points, Matti, thanks. Definitely plan to read the entire Exodus account in detail and brush up on everything before going into the theater. And, just to be clear — as I mentioned in another comment — I was definitely not saying that the Bible claims some kind of brother relationship or even a fraternal bond between Moses and Pharaoh. I was only pointing out that Hollywood already had a history of creating that invented “brotherhood” narrative — basically injecting it into the Exodus account for dramatic effect. I didn’t make that clear in my article and will make a slight adjustment to my language in that section.
Kevin, I thought I’d just set the record straight on one point: Hollywood did not invent the “’brotherhood’ narrative.” Dorothy Clarke Wilson (1904-2003) did so in her novel, Prince of Egypt. DeMille bought the rights to her book and even toyed with naming his second Moses film Prince of Egypt. During the course of the screenwriting, the script evolved away from many of the book’s plot points, but kept the “brotherhood narrative.” DreamWorks SKG borrowed the name and concept (and much more) for its own version in 1998. Both films told their stories so powerfully that generations grew up accepting their narratives as “gospel.” Enter Ridley Scott, whose understanding of the tale seems to have come almost exclusively from DeMille’s film. Nothing I’ve read so far suggests that he read any part of the Book of Exodus as an adult.
I stand corrected, Scott — I should have researched that more before making that assumption (and then stating it as fact). Thanks for pointing that out and setting me straight on that, I appreciate it!
Also, your website’s breakdown of the history of the Exodus story put to film (http://flickeringtablets.weebly.com/the-shows.html) is fascinating! Well done. I’ll be using your site as a source for research going forward (and will link back to it accordingly, of course).
Eh? The New Kingdom lasted from the reign of Ahmose I through to Ramesses XI. If the Israelites were exiled in the time of Ramaces the Great, they were ver much in Egypt during the New Kingdom.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the alternate theory that the Israelites were the Hyksos – in which case they were exiled just as the New Kingdom began.
R
I knew this movie would be misguided as soon as I saw the subtitle “Gods and Kings”. Any Christian would already have a problem with that title, and it told me exactly how the movie was going to be treated. Before the movie even begins they are already marginalizing the role of God by grouping him in with Rameses (who only thinks he is a god).
I was proven right with this fear as soon as I heard that a young British boy was cast to play God Himself. Compare that to how the classic Ten Commandments movie treats God- with reverence and fear. Instead, in this movie, He is reduced to a petulant child. It’s as simple as this- when the filmmakers don’t believe the material, then all you get is another cookie-cutter epic with interchangeable characters, including “gods”.
You should note that scholars do not think the flood in Gilgamesh was a part of the original stories but a later addition.
Possibly taken from other tales or events.
Meaning it is likely there I’d ur version unfound.
What it may be we cannot say.
Good conversations, here. It is good to see a board where people can come and share their comments and ideas without being berated for them. I have seen enough of those places. No doubt Ridley Scott made some interesting choices to represent different aspects in the film (like the voice of God). I probably won’t like all of them, but like I said before, it looks like he tried to interpret at least some of the events as ones that were “ordained by God”. I found Darren Aronofsky’s choices for Noah not to work for the film (the rock creatures were very distracting. I understood what he was trying to do, but in the context of the film it really took me out of parts of it). Another thing to keep in mind is that some of the criticism that has been leveled against “Exodus” so far has been that some of the relationships or characters in the film were not fully developed (specifically, Moses and Rameses’ relationship). The running time of the film was 3 hours and then cut to 2 1/2 for theaters. But, Ridley Scott mentioned that the original film is 4 hours. I am sure we will probably see a Director’s Cut of the film, at some point. I would love to see all 4 hours of it. For some people it may help the story, for others it may not. I can’t judge anything until I see it, but I would like to see everything that was done, put out there. I will be seeing the film the day before its official release, so if people are posting reviews, I may throw mine into the ring. Just a side note…I love the soundtrack for the film. The music is quite good!
Great points, Dara, and please let me know if you post a review and I will link to it in my official review that will run Friday morning, Dec 12.
Just a side note…the film was originally titled “Exodus”, but had to be changed because another studio owned the rights to the name. The “Gods and Kings” was then added to the title. But, interestingly there was another Moses film in the works titled “Gods and Kings” which Steven Spielberg was going to direct. He dropped out and then Ang Lee was going to take over, but it never materialized. Ridley Scott beat them to the punch. I think the film is now off the table, all together. I am not a big fan of the subtitle, myself, so “Exodus” is just fine with me.
As a former Atheist I now understand without a doubt that accurate logic and reasoning can only lead you TO God and to realize the authenticity of biblical records.
Video suggestion on Noah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8&list=PLFTXnqj2eHwRSVsNXRGMsO6iB5GoZ9rVs – Noah: The truth is bigger…
Morris, that was the same conclusion that C.S. Lewis (who was also an atheist at one time) and G.K. Chesterton came to, interestingly. The public debates that Chesterton participated in, which dealt with these topics, are fascinating to read about. Thanks for your comments.
I saw the film and I did like it. But, I think they should change the name to Edit Us: Gods and Kings. Some of the scenes are not edited together well. I think they wanted to cram everything into two and a half hours, so they put a patchwork of scenes together, in parts of the film. In some instances it worked and others it didn’t. The film did suffer from a lack of character development, in places. I am hoping they put the the whole 4 hours on DVD. There were a few clips that I saw that had material that was not in the film. I think Ridley Scott has a decent film here, but it could be better, if additional material was added to strengthen the plot, more. I will write more soon (about Bale & Edgerton and some of the other actors). I just wanted to give a very brief overview on the film. I liked most of the choices that Ridley Scott made. He really did not stray far out of the box, overall. The last quarter of the film is the best in my opinion. The final plague, the killing of the firstborn and the Exodus, was done well. More to come…
Exodus: Gods and Kings Review
(I apologize for the length. I had a lot to say).
As a film “Exodus: Gods and Kings” was both brilliant and frustrating. I waited 3 months to see this film, hanging on clips and any other information that 20th Century Fox released. The trailers were beautifully done and the overall look of the film was wonderful. The sets and costumes were stunning. They transformed you back to that time in ancient Egypt.
I was hoping that Ridley Scott had something that could rival my favorite film, “Gladiator” (which he directed, as well). So, my expectations were high. But, it is hard to catch lighting in a bottle.
Ancient epics are difficult to make, especially ones that are based on the Bible. There is a fine line that is walked each time one of these films goes into production. There is a large risk of polarizing the audience that the film was intended for. That target audience is Christians, who have helped make Biblical films profitable since “The Ten Commandments” back in the 1950’s and more recently with “Passion of the Christ” and “Noah” which made over $650 million and $350 million each, respectively. Those are huge numbers. Christians have become a demographic that Hollywood can’t ignore.
Enter “Exodus: Gods and Kings”, the story of Moses, with Christian Bale as the lead and Joel Edgerton as his brother turned rival, Ramesses II. Personally, I enjoyed the film. I did not agree with every choice that Scott made to represent the various aspects of the story. But, the most frustrating part of the film was its lack of cohesiveness, especially with character development. Characters came and went with no explanation and they served no purpose to move the plot along. For instance, Sigourney Weaver (who I like as an actress) played Ramesses mother with only a few lines in the film. Then she disappeared (she must have had another film she was working on). I still can’t figure out what her character’s purpose was, in the film. She seemed like she was there only to inflame her son’s hatred toward Moses. With thin character development, the film dissolved into a patchwork of scenes edited together, which moved rather quickly. The film starts in Egypt introducing Moses and Ramesses and jumps right away into the Battle of Kadesh, then soon after Moses finds out his true identity, he is exiled, flees to Midian, marries Zipporah and then is called back to Egypt. This was all pretty much done within the first hour of the film. It is when Moses goes back to Egypt that the story picks up the pace. To me it felt like being invited to dinner and being rushed through the main course to get to the dessert. I felt like the first part of the film suffered (at least in the editing room) to make the final part of the film work on a grand scale. I thought the final act did work very well. It is too bad it was at the expense of the first one.
As far as the acting goes, both Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton were very good in their respective roles. Christian Bale plays Moses as a warrior, but a very conflicted and reluctant leader who is hesitant about what God wants him to do. His performance was both tough and sensitive, at the same time. Joel Edgerton plays Ramesses as the cruel pharaoh, fueled by paranoia and fear, who lives in the shadow of Moses and though he tries to convince himself that he is a god and has supreme power, he can never escape the prophecy and the disappointment of his father, who chooses Moses over him to rule. Yet, we also see that he has a sensitive side in his love for his young son. Both men are equally matched on screen and have good chemistry in their scenes with each other. I wish their relationship had more depth. I felt there was more that could have been told, but was not included. I also thought Aaron Paul was good as Joshua. It was an understated role, which was never fully developed, but at least his character served a purpose, especially during the latter part of the film. I wish we could know what he was thinking, especially in the few scenes when he saw Moses talking to “the messenger” (only Moses could see him) and Moses is seen by Joshua, as talking to no one. Ben Kingsley is always good. He played Nun, Joshua’s father, who tells Moses about his true identity. He also has a reoccurring role throughout the film.
As far as the weakest part of the film, that had to be “the messenger” role. First, I found the child to be a poor representation of God. I also don’t think that the role was defined well enough. I think people can gather who he was, but I saw a big disconnect between him and the Burning Bush. The representation was just not delivered well, in the film. The way it was done in the “Ten Commandments” was much more appealing. Also, I agree that “the messenger” was portrayed as being very vengeful, blood thirsty and power hungry. It is the exact opposite of our loving God and I am guessing that it was opposite of how the Lord actually spoke to Moses. The character actually became annoying to me after awhile.
As for where the film really shines is the plagues, up through the end of the film. This is where I really saw the brilliance of Ridley Scott. His masterful direction and use of shadow and light combined with CGI, really made the last part of the film compelling. The plagues were bold and well executed. Especially the final plague with the death of the first born of Egypt. These were the best scenes between Moses (Bale) and Ramesses (Edgerton), as Ramesses carries his dead child to be buried and confronts Moses and agrees to let the Hebrews go free. It also portrays the unraveling of Ramesses, as a man who is basically stripped of everything that has meaning to him. It is out of this he decides to pursue Moses and the Hebrews to destroy them. The crossing of the Red Sea coupled with the pursuit of the Egyptians is solid; especially the chariots and horses traveling the narrow road in which many of the Egyptians are killed, when the road collapses. Ramesses is determined and presses on and as he finally meets up with Moses in the Red Sea (as his men are turning back) a huge wave comes and sweeps them both under the water. They both survive and Moses leads his people on, while Ramesses is left on the beach looking at the death and destruction of Egyptians, animals and chariots. He is broken and realizes that he is not the great leader he thought he was. The final scene is Moses as an older man riding with the ark, traveling to the Promised Land.
Overall, the film is worth a look. I only hope that the DVD will contain the whole 4 hour film, so maybe the extra footage can give clarity and cohesion to many of the scenes that had to be edited for time. I think this film deserves a fair shot, so I will reserve a final judgement until I see the complete film (if there is a Director’s Cut). The film has its issues, but overall the good outweighed the bad, to make “Exodus” one of Ridley Scott’s better films in the last few years.
Just an F.Y.I…The DVD will be available on Blu-Ray disc on March 17th.
Awesome review! Your points about the character development nailed it, and your review reminded me of a lot of things, like how rushed everything was when Moses returns to Egypt. This version definitely did not feel like a complete movie. I also really hope the extra footage is on the DVD! Would be very interesting to compare the two versions.
An update about the DVD…Ridley Scott said in an interview that he more than likely will not release a 4 hour version of the film on Blu-Ray. There will be 25 minutes of additional material, as one of the menu options (probably deleted scenes). He actually presented a 4 hour version to Fox and was thinking about releasing it, but decided against it (he didn’t think audiences would go for it). He said the film worked at about 4 hours. There was actually even more footage than that. We will see what the DVD looks like in March 2015.
That’s mind-blowing how much footage he had — and by some miracle they finished the shoot under 80 days!! That guy must be a very hard worker.
its pure hollywood garbage. It has been released elsewhere. I think you just want some 3d eye candy, and to feel good about it. He destroyed the story and the character of the most holy God. Wait for netflix if you must subject your child heart to this blassphemous torture, but please dont add to the undeserving millions of $s this movie will recieve on opening night. It doesnt even attempt to be anything but an excuse for over priced, but beautiful cg. Dont hype this bunk. You’ve been warned.
May reall God bless you… the god of this movie will just make you vomit a little in your mouth.
Jake,
Thanks for your comments. Personally, I like epics and was interested in what Ridley Scott would do with the subject. I am not interested in it for the “3D eye candy”, but I like films based on antiquity. They do interest me (I enjoyed, “Gladiator”, “Troy” and “Alexander”, as well). What I saw in this looked good from the trailers (including costumes and sets). There were some things I liked about the film and things that I didn’t (they just didn’t work). I take it for what it is…a movie. The Bible is the only place to get the true and infallible Word of God, period. A film is made for entertainment and this one was based on a Bible story and one man’s interpretation of that. I am not saying it was the right interpretation, that is subjective. As an example, “The Ten Commandments” presented one of the same themes as “Exodus” did that Moses and Ramesses were brothers; which they were not. Because I know the story, I was able to take that for what it was. Other parts of “Exodus” film did follow closer to the Bible. I just wasn’t going to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. But, then again you can go down the line and find issues with every film based on the Bible. None of them are perfect. Each of us has an differing opinion and I am glad we are able to express them in a civil way, here. Thank you for the blessings, same back to you!
An interesting scientific paper….
The mummy of Ramesses II was taken to France in 1985 for preservation. The mummy was also forensically tested and the results determined that:
Quote:
“Hair astonishinghy preserved showed some complementary data – especially about pigmentation: Ramses II was a ginger haired cymnotriche leucoderma.”
Professor Pierre-Fernand CECCALDI, Forensic Scientist, Criminal Identification Laboratory of Paris.
(Bulletin de l’Academie de médecine – Volume 171, Issue 1. p119)
Ralph
I appreciate seeing someone look forward to Exodus gods and kings in an optimistic light. I was anxious to see the Bible presented on such a grand scale. But unfortunately the movie was far from being embraced by Christians or anyone for that matter…here was some positive take aways i had – http://graytotebox.com/the-exodus-gods-and-kings-movie-articles-the-top-twenty-things-i-appreciated-from-exodus/
Thanks, Jake. Really enjoyed your article about “Exodus.” As I read through the 20 points you mentioned, I kept thinking, “Oh yeah, I really liked that part too!” I’m glad someone caught those points and put it in print. And, I agree, I really liked the “my name is Nun” scene too! (And, in general, I’m such a fan of Ben Kingsley.)
I agree with you that Christians should use such an opportunity to engage culture…http://graytotebox.com/the-exodus-gods-and-kings-movie-articles-rather-than-boycott-christians-need-to-trust-gods-power/
I’m sick of Christians taking scientific content and arrogantly warping it into something that fits their worldview — even twisting the facts or stating speculative interpretation as fact. I’ve seen Christian pastors blatantly lie about what science actually says simply to bolster their arguments.
That’s discouraging to read. Which pastors? What specifically were they lying about? Or are you just slandering Christians in general because you hate the Christian worldview?
I’ve heard many brilliant pastors, Christian speakers, and scientists who are Christians — including some of the greatest thinkers in their field (i.e. physicist Dr. George Ellis) — make truthful, brilliant, thought-provoking, and inspiring statements using accurate understanding of observational science.
And, frankly, since you’re busy pointing fingers, the tendency to twist the truth with prejudice to arrive at a desired conclusion is common in secular culture. I think, just off the top of my head, of Saul Alinsky who applied post-modern relativism to political theory and taught his followers that lying was entirely justified if it achieved the desired outcome.
It’s a shame that you’ve encountered pastors who were lying. But there are many many wonderful pastors out there who speak truth. You accuse Christians of arrogance, but your comment is itself communicated in an arrogant, slanderous, bitter tone that smacks more of pride than of concern or genuine love for anybody.
Ridley Scott needs to go back and read Moses over again. A lot of parts were wrong/backwards just like in the movie Noah starring Russell Crowe. Having the king stowaway on the ark.
If your going to make movies about the bible, don’t take or add to it. If your not a believer then you shouldn’t be doing a movie at all when you can’t get the story correct.