Le fils prodigue

In 70 BC, the middle eastern seaport city of Joppa is bustling with business. A major disruption occurs when handsome Edmund Purdom (as Micah) saves runaway slave James Mitchell (as Asham) from nasty Neville Brand (as Rhakim). A mute, Mr. Mitchell is wounded and taken home to live with Mr. Purdom's family. They worship one God (Jehovah), according to the opening narration; they are Hebrew. Going against his religion, Purdom is smitten with high priestess Lana Turner (as Samarra). An uncommon blonde, she worships the pagan Baal, male God of the flesh...

Our protagonist and star decides to leave home and "have" (sex with) Ms. Turner. Purdom takes Mitchell and relocates to Damascus. Turner's likewise aroused, but requires a payment of pearls, as is customary for Baal. Meanwhile, high priest Louis Calhern (as Nahreeb), the previous owner of Mitchell, desires revenge. Turner does little to justify her star billing. This is an adaptation of "The Prodigal Son" story from The New Testament, Luke 15: 11-32, which is mentioned in the introduction. It's only an average story, but competently produced and expensive looking.

***** The Prodigal (2/27/55) Richard Thorpe ~ Edmund Purdom, Lana Turner, James Mitchell, Louis Calhern

A sadly boring spectacle of a biblical film, even though almost all the production values are of a high quality (except that special effect vulture). The script and direction of are simply too bland for the story, but more importantly we simply do not care about the character, and most of them are rather unsympathetic. The one redeeming performance is that of Frances L. Sullivan - and this was his last film. He deliciously adds something to each of the scenes he is in, whereas Edmund Purdom gives little throughout the film. Lana Turner is beautiful, but not sensual and her character seems too undefined to be really intriguing -that is until her demise. It is interesting to see a film such as this, where no expense has been spared, with great MGM art direction and costume design, intriguing choreography and movement, the then novel CinemaScope cinematography, and realizing fairly quickly that is simply does not hold. The above mentioned factors prevent it from being utterly boring, but my overall reaction is one of disappointment.

I recall that Senator Estes Kefauver made a great deal of political hay out of his holding up to (self-)righteous scorn the publicity campaign for this lavish five million dollar spectacle. Lana, featured in one of her more strategically beaded creations, was front and center in several of the advertisements used to promote this next-to-last of her M-G-M contract obligations. The Senator did his best to bring the studio to its knees over this blatant exploitation of (gasp!) sex in what was, after all, thinly veiled titillation, designed to unglue the American hoi polloi from its presumably chaste TV screens. (How he must have gloated when several theater owners had the lobby posters retouched to show somewhat less of the Luscious Lana!) Other comments about this one are pretty much "right on" but the Senator's fulminations were far more revealing of his hypocrisy than anything Lana was required to enact as the High Priestess Samarra. How little has changed in Washington, D.C. to this very day. Sometimes I think that politicians distract us more successfully than the most skilled artists of the cinema!

Though the script and direction was lackluster, Lana Turner was bewitching, Joseph Wiseman a scene stealer, and Edmund Purdom very impressive in diction and mannerisms. I wish Purdom had been picked up by good directors to bring out his latent potential. Bronislaw Kaper's music was commendable.

All in all the contributions by many in this movie were notable, but somehow they lacked cohesion. Turner, Wiseman, and Purdom were all good to watch but they seem to be performing in three Biblical films made for three directors demanding different styles. Turner was epitome of Hollywood, Wiseman seemed to be playing in a French director's film, and Purdom in a British one.

There isn't a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said previously.The film does drag,the plot is labored,and,for all of the spectacle,most of the cast look as though they would rather be doing something else.I have to disagree,very slightly,with one observation made by the most recent reviewer.Purdom's Micah,is,of course,a fool,a dupe,an ingrate,and a chump of the first order.My thought is,why did they have someone of his age playing the character?He appears to be playing a character of his own chronological age.And,any 30-year old man who is taken to the cleaners the way Micah is,has left himself wide open for this kind of exploitation.It might have made more sense(and a more believable film)if Micah had been played by a late-adolescent,who had never been away from home before,rather than a mature traveler and merchant.Take this for whatever it happens to be worth.