Éxodo

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?

I saw Exodus when it first came out in 1960. I lived in a New Jersey community with a large Jewish population and many of this population were Holocaust survivors. I also read the book in 1964 and although the movie couldn't include all of the events in text, it did give people an idea of the struggle to form a Jewish Homeland. I recommended it recently to a Palestinian young woman to give her some idea of this struggle by Israel to survive in a hostile environment. I also suggested that she read the book. In a world in which some people prefer ideas condensed, the movie at least gave some idea of the formation of a new country. Paul Newman was every Jewish girl's dream husband and every mother's son-in-law in my neighborhood, Sal Mineo was convincing in his anguish, the others did what they could. I would recommend it to people who aren't familiar with the events leading to today's difficulties in the Middle East. Perhaps Exodus should have been filmed like the Godfather movies. A movie depicting the past and the present lives of the characters could have helped. Hollywood wasn't in that mind frame in the 1950's and 1960's and that's too bad.

The film version of Leon Uris' Exodus was intentionally scripted for an American audience unfamiliar with Holocaust and Jewish themes. In fact, the film harps on major character Kitty's discomfort just being around Jews. Exodus is a 1960's Hollywood version of the creation of the modern State of Israel "for dummies", and in this it succeeds. While not having any religious Jewish content whatsoever, the film discuss themes of Jewish identity after the Holocaust, the plight of Jewish refugees under the British, the internal struggle of the Haganah versus the militant Irgun, and major historical incidents in the War for Independence 1948. While inaccurate about the actual Exodus ship incident, the film was a milestone in American Jewish cinema and identity. To this day, the film's music remains a mainstay in Jewish American homes.

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.

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.