Exodus

1. This is a movie, folks. Yes, based on a novel, but it was just that - a novel. Uris didn't claim to be writing a history textbook. As with all memorable literature, he tweaked some facts and embroidered his landscape with memorable fictional characters (although yes, many were based on real-life people.) So it's not appropriate to criticize either the novel or the book for not getting every historical fact absolutely right.

2. This is a MOVIE, folks. Based on a novel, but it's still a movie. Which meant that the actors were cast for a variety of reasons, one of which was solid bank-ability at the box office. To those who complained that Eva Marie Saint is too old in this film, I'd like to remind them that she was only a few months older (in real life) than Paul Newman was. And having her a bit older than the character in the novel is fine, since she brings a different life perspective than someone in her 20s would have. Especially since she was playing a widow. just mho.

3. What has depressed me is that this IMDb discussion of a movie has brought out the Haters. I don't mean people who hated the movie; I mean people who hate Jews and the State of Israel. Apparently, no amount of art, or even actual history, will ever be enough for some people to stop hating, to get them to stop looking for every possible opportunity to malign any group of people they get something -- however perverse or destructive -- out of hating.

4. My personal opinion of this movie is that it's an excellent MOVIE. It entertains. It teaches us a few basic facts about the creation of Israel that most of us never learned in school. It is well-cast, well-acted, well-directed, and well-photographed. In addition, it has a great score throughout the film (not just the very memorable main theme.) I saw it at a movie theater when I was fairly young, and I've probably seen it on TV over a dozen times since then. I also read the novel (a long time ago), but if I've learned anything over the years, it's that movies and novels are different animals that can't fairly be compared page-for-page, so to speak. Heck - ever read "Gone With The Wind?" In the novel, Scarlett has one child with each of her husbands, but in the movie, she only has the one child, with Rhett. But no one complains about it because it's a damn good movie. And so is "Exodus." It's damn good movie.

I liked this film, but didn't love it--mostly because the original novel by Leon Uris is so much better that I can't help but feel disappointed. In addition, having the film star so many "guest stars" made it seem a bit like an Irwin Allen picture instead of a serious film about the foundation of Israel in 1948. However, in its favor, the musical score is striking. And, even if the plot is diluted a bit and didn't need all the cameos, it still is immensely entertaining.

What I would really love to one day see is a mini-series based on the book--as there is just too much plot to shove into one film--even a long film like EXODUS. The writing and emotion was so exceptional in the book and I'd love to see it captured more completely. But next time, stop putting very American actors in the leads--Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb and Sal Mineo were all fine actors but the film needed people in the leads--not movie stars.

Seeing "Exodus" early in the 21st century, one is robbed of the experience that moviegoers of the early 1960s would have had; it's impossible to see a movie about the birth of Israel now without the perspective of the Six-Day War of 1967, which changed the perception many non-Jews had of Israel. That, and the events that the Six-Day War led to, have eroded the moral assurance that many of the main characters of "Exodus" espouse about Israel and its founding, and would eventually lead to the moral quagmire found 45 years later in Steven Spielberg's "Munich." Today, "Munich" is much closer to the grayness of who is right or wrong in the modern-day Middle East than the black-and-white assumptions that drive the characters of "Exodus" in 1947 -- or its creators in 1960.

And it's likewise much harder to accept Paul Newman in the role of a Jewish freedom fighter; though he was already a big star in 1960 (which was no doubt the reason that he was chosen for the part), one cannot evaluate his performance here without recalling all the other high points of his career that were still ahead of him -- "The Hustler," "Cool Hand Luke," "Hombre," and of course his two big triumphs with Robert Redford, as Butch and Sundance and in "The Sting" -- not to mention a career that kept humming even into the 1990s. He's hardly remembered for this role at all today, and though even he isn't in every scene in a sweeping epic like this, it's hard to look at the movie without remembering all that would come later.

What stands out today more than Newman's performance, therefore, are the many secondary characters -- Sal Mineo as the tortured survivor of Auschwitz with secrets that lead him to the Irgun (and a performance that would earn him his second and last Oscar nomination); David Opatoshu as a Menachem Begin-like figure who believes violence is better than negotiation; and Jill Haworth, all of 15 at the time, and who would have a bevy of ingénue roles into the 1960s, but whose career would dribble out by the end of the next decade.

In particular, this was a great role for Opatoshu, who is probably best remembered today for his many guest shots on television (like Newman, most that came after this, in everything from "Twilight Zone" and "Mission:Impossible" to "Star Trek" and "Hawaii Five-O"). Though he is recognizable for those roles, it's worth remembering that he came out of Yiddish Theater and was a controlled, subtle performer who rarely got the kind of meaty role that he had here -- and one that no doubt was important to him.

So, while it's mainly remembered today for Ernest Gold's stirring theme music, "Exodus" is interesting as a window into a different time and a different way of thinking -- both about its subject matter and its main character . . . and the once and future star who played him.

I can't see how this movie was not even NOMINATED for best picture. It is on par with all the other big epic pictures that have won it, like Ben Hur. This movie deserved it more than the typical mushy love story Apartment - what is it with the Academy Awards and mushy love stories? Why can't they understand that this movie was not just a diversion, but a historical non-biased account on the foundation of one of the most critical countries of the world?

Otto Preminger's presentation of Leon Uris' novel "Exodus" tried to evoke comparisons, in its trailer, to "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation". Those films overcome ideological flaws, and remain genuine, undeniable classics. Despite the starry cast and sweeping grandeur, "Exodus" fails to achieve its epic intentions. Mr. Preminger, coming off the superb "Anatomy of a Murder", gives it a long and dull direction. Paul Newman (as Ari Ben Canaan) and Eva Marie Saint (as Kitty Fremont) are quite unconvincing, in the leading roles. Still, there are some good characterizations, and nicely staged scenes.

The film offers two obvious, award-garnering career moves: Sal Mineo's masterful supporting performance, and Ernest Gold's beautiful musical score. Mr. Mineo (as Dov Landau) won a "Golden Globe" as "Best Supporting Actor"; and, arguably, he also deserved the year's "Academy Award". His subplot, played with pretty blonde newcomer Jill Haworth (as Karen Johansson), is far and away the most interesting story, thanks to Mineo's acting work. Mr. Gold's "Exodus" theme is also outstanding, selling well over a million copies of the Ferrante and Teicher version alone; it won not only an Oscar, but also a Grammy as 1960's "Song of the Year".

****** Exodus (12/15/60) Otto Preminger ~ Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Sal Mineo