Land der Pharaonen

Because it belongs to a genre that has grown unhip ,Howard Hawks's magnificent epic ,his only movie in cinemascope ,gets incredibly low ratings."Rio Bravo" 's screenplay is not much better than "pharaohs" ,but it's fashionable to put a western on your best movies list.A sword and sandal cannot be serious (with the exceptions of "Ben Hur" and "Ten commandments" )and that's why "the Egyptian" and "land of the pharaohs " are despised and dismissed as cheesy.

Hawks's movie has one of the best ,most impressive and terrifying ending I know.These last pictures are a riveting tour de force with an editing to rival the best of Lang or Welles.The story spreads over fifteen years ,which is long for a relatively short work.Hawks was obviously more interested in his villains (Hawkins and Collins) than the heroes(the architect slave (Justice),his son and his people:both are fascinating.The pharaoh's dream of eternity is selfishness itself disguised as religion.To be buried with his riches to be able to enjoy them in his second life paradoxically seems a pagan attitude;the architect ,in direct contrast to him,is a slave who 's got nothing and he did not believe in life after life:it might make think of a Jew but neither him nor his people seem to have a religion,which is a very original move for a peplum (in Curtiz's "the Egyptian" ,the precedent year,the same went for the hero Sinouhe:these are the only examples in an epic).Hawks might have been influenced by Lang's wife's screenplay "das Indische Grabmal" ,which Lang finally took to the screen in the late fifties but which was filmed by others before him.Do not let the Faulkner reference fool you.He reportedly wrote half a page of script which can be summed up as follows:"Pharaoh pays a visit to the pyramid while the workers are sweating blood to get it done and he asks "how 's the work coming on?".

Nellifer is Joan Collins at her bitchiest: a greedy woman,who had already problems with dynasties.Unlike pharaoh,she wants to have her cake and eat it.Her acting is pure camp ,which fits the character like a glove.Her fate will make your hair stand on end.

Hawks makes a wonderful use of the cinemascope , when he displays a cast of thousands and when he directs his characters in the confined atmosphere of the pyramid.He succeeds in creating a sublime contrast between the dark subterranean of the grave and the luminous blue sky of the desert,particularly in the last sequences ,I say it again,among the very best of the fifties cinema.

Here's a film hotly criticized by not only many who saw the film, but by director Hawks himself. It's true, there's a bit of the Hollywood glam element to the production, but I'd say no more so than a half dozen other Hawks films, including the much more often praised "Rio Bravo" and "Hatari!"! (which both followed directly after "Pharaohs"). And the plot of "Pharaohs" makes a lot more sense than that of Hawks' earlier film, "The Big Sleep," which I believe is over praised because of its cast.

As a grand epic from the era where they made them big and were not afraid to spend money where it would show up on screen, "Land of the Pharaohs" surpasses many other epics of its period and even many recent films dealing with a similar subject (1999's "The Mummy" comes to mind). "Pharaohs" has an impressive and very satisfying climax that makes perfect sense historically and dramatically.

Also, no one seems to have mentioned the marvelous handling of crowds, particularly in the lengthy building of the pyramid sequence. I'll even go so far as to say the way Hawks composes his crowds for the cinemascope screen - arranging his Egyptian workers and pharaoh worshipers in intricate patterns with complex movements - rivals even Fritz Lang's similar work in "Metropolis" (1926), famous for its handling of crowds.

I think one of the reasons the film keeps getting bashed is because people haven't seen it in its original widescreen format in many years. Until recently, no Region 1 DVD has been available, so in its cropped, pan and scan VHS incarnation, the film comes across as wimpy and ridiculous. As can be seen in the widescreen DVD release, the grandeur is stunning, its art direction, costumes, sets and locations all holding up marvelously.

It must be said that composer Dimitri Tiomkin probably never wrote a score as majestically spirited as this one, a vast canvas of antiquity and drama. The cast is very much of its time, and some of the dialog is stilted and dated, but with the passing of time, most films suffer from this. Time passes and acting styles change. But a good plot holds up, and "Pharaohs" has plenty of the devious vs altruistic characters that drove many of Hawks plots effectively.

The powers that be in Hollywood finally released the film on DVD, promoting it as a camp classic, adorning the cover with a cheesy shot of Joan Collins, the one thing they apparently consider notable and sell-able about the film. Too bad. Yes, "Land of the Pharaohs" does have an element of campiness, but there is true grandeur in the vastness of the production and the fact that its cast of thousands was indeed a cast of thousands, not CGI. Perhaps one day the wonders of this film will be given the appreciation it deserves. As time passes these epics seem to be acquiring as much antiquity as the genuine historical period itself.

"Land of the Pharaohs" is on many Guilty Pleasure lists and deservedly so. You know it is only for entertainment purposes. Joan Collins as well as the character she portrays are over the top campy and not to be taken seriously. Her cruel, selfish Queen is utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities, utterly ruthless and wicked- in other words, delicious fun to watch.

Most of the acting is high-quality, especially the legendary Jack Hawkins who is magnificent as usual although Yul Brynner or Charleton Heston probably would have fit the role better.

Beautifully filmed with a very expensive look it is a movie with an obviously lavish budget. Despite the extravagance, I can fully understand why it didn't do well at the box-office. Focused on death and monuments it can be seen as somewhat depressing and has a grim, doomed aspect overall amid the splendor.

Unless maybe written by Edgar Allan Poe, how is a film about a tomb going to attract a great public to the theater? The answer is: it didn't. It is not an adventure about getting to a tomb such as Indiana Jones-type films, it is basically only a film about a tomb itself.

Death, murder, slavery, a tomb. If not handled just right these subjects can't succeed alone. Here they do, but just barely.

Land of the Pharaohs is a fascinating, sometimes morbid glimpse into the Hollywoodized past. Unlike many epics, the film forsakes the usual Judeo-Christian perspective in favor of a completely pagan outlook. That, combined with some striking scenes involving the building of Khufu's pyramid, makes this worthwhile entertainment.

Over the years, many have criticized the film, including Howard Hawks, Hawkins and Collins. On close examination, their criticism of the dialogue is only partially justified. While there is some verbosity, and the discourse between Khufu and his first wife over his desire for a son seems unnecessary if not ridiculous(in this instance actions would speak louder than words)the dialogue is more than serviceable. During the funeral ritual for the heroic dead, the grand, evocative speech is even inspired.

Hawks also lamented that the film contained "no one to root for." Indeed, Hawkins' Pharaoh is decisive, infrequently warm and unquenchably greedy. As Princess Nellifer, Joan Collins is even more unsavory. There exists however, a necessary counterpoint in the character of Vashtar, who designs the pyramid in order to free his people. James Robertson Justice gives a sympathetic performance as the designer who is alternately good natured, thoughtful, and indignant at the pharaoh's cruelty. As the pharaohs advisor, Alexis Minotis manages a remarkable acting feat by enforcing Khufu's will and simultaneously evoking audience sympathy. As Vashtar's son, Dewey Martin's All-American boy persona is the only off key note.

Despite the generally capable acting, the film's chief attraction is the abundant spectacle. The thousands of workers toiling to build the pyramid, and the colorful court pageantry, are what linger most in the viewer's mind. The much-discussed ending may or may not be historically accurate, but is nevertheless filmed with a chilling sense of realism. In short, Land of the Pharaohs is an interesting thematic departure from the epics of the 1950s.

It's hard to know how to rate movies like this because the genre is so inherently cheesy. In the grand scheme of all cinema, it probably should only get a 6 out of 10, but within the "swords and sandals" genre, it surely rates a 10! There are many classic themes here: an aging man's wish to be remembered through a great monument, a slave's desire to win freedom for his people, an ambitious woman's lust for power at any cost. Of course, everything is overacted and obvious as hell, but the plot stays focused, unrolling inexorably to it's horror-movie ending. This is Saturday afternoon escapism at its best.