उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

The exciting feature of the 50th Anniversary Editon of DeMille's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is to be able to see the original 1923 version in a pristine print along with Katherine Orrison's illuminating commentary track. Previously only available on VHS tape with the poorly surviving colorized footage of the Exodus and Parting of the Red Sea (provided as a separate Extra on the DVD)used, it was difficult to realize just how beautifully done the silent epic was. Paramount has cleaned up the print and used only the better surviving black & white elements for this release. The beauty of the photography comes through with great clarity. Orrison's commentary is full of interesting insights as well as being enjoyable due to her enthusiasm about so many details. And Gaylord Carter's Wurlitzer Pipe Organ score is very impressive (as well as being a marvelous record of an organ score done by one who actually performed during the silent era)on this digital stereo recording. The 1956 remake looks and sounds great, as are the all of the special features for it, but this is exactly the same as the previous second edition of this title. I bought the new edition in order to see what they had done with the 1923 version -- and I certainly am impressed. Also, I love the packaging for this edition. Well worth updating as it is available at a very decent price.

Going on 90 years since it was first released, the original The Ten Commandments can still overawe you with the spectacle of both the biblical prologue and the modern story. Modern in the sense that it was set during the Jazz Age Roaring Twenties, the 1923 when Paramount released what would become that studio's biggest moneymaker up to that time.

You'll recognize the biblical prologue if you've seen the 1956 remake, it is almost a 45 minute scene for scene remake of the time that Charlton Heston and John Carradine arrive at the Egyptian court until the destruction of the Golden calf. They weren't giving Oscars back in 1923, but the parting of the Red Sea was incredible for its time and would have given Cecil B. DeMille yet another Oscar for the same event.

You won't recognize a lot of the biblical prologue cast, but they were part and parcel of a DeMille stock company that he developed during silent era and continued to a lesser degree after the coming of sound. Best known probably was Estelle Taylor who was married to Jack Dempsey at the time as Miriam, the sister of Moses.

The bulk of the film is the modern story which has the theme break the Ten Commandments and they'll break you. The stars are Richard Dix and Rod LaRocque a pair of brothers, one good and one bad, sons of a most pious mother Edythe Chapman. Dix is a good, honest, and steady carpenter by trade and LaRocque through his ruthlessness and who winds up breaking all the Commandments becomes the richest contractor in the state.

LaRocque is pretty ruthless in his private affairs, he breaks the Commandments regarding those as well. He marries Leatrice Joy who Dix likes as well, but then gets a fetching Eurasian mistress in Nita Naldi. Nita is in the slinky and sexy tradition of all DeMille's bad girls.

It all ends really bad for LaRocque as his sins catch up with him.

During the modern story DeMille hand with spectacle is a good one in the scene of the church collapse and later on during the climatic escape LaRocque is attempting to make with a speedboat on a stormy night at sea.

The influence of DeMille's educator father Henry and his friend David Belasco are strong here as they are in all DeMille work. The modern story is the kind of morality play that Belasco would produce and write for the stage for years. It's from the Victorian era, but the Roaring Twenties audience wanted something that reflected traditional values occasionally as if nervously waiting for its excesses to catch up. It's partly the reason why they could find comfort in a Congregationalist president of the USA in Calvin Coolidge.

Though the story is unbelievably dated, DeMille's cinematic techniques are hardly that. The original Ten Commandments in many ways will tell you about its creator warts and all.

'The Ten Commandments' was released in 1923 and was directed by Cecil B. DeMille and is the first of two Ten Commandments films directed by him.

This version differs in more ways than one to the remake. While the remake primarily centers on the story of Moses, the original version only features Moses in the prologue (which runs for approximately 40 minutes). The rest of the film centers on an atheist man in present day (the 1920s) who sets out to break the Ten Commandments in order to become successful.

Comparing to the remake, the special effects in the 'parting of the waves' scene definitely look more realistic here (especially considering this was released in 1923) and the entire prologue I masterfully created - however I do wish it was longer since there was little to no development in the characters because of it's short runtime.

I was initially skeptical about the present day segment of the film but I was thoroughly impressed and the story was definitely intriguing, especially towards the end.

Overall, I do prefer the 1956 remake however you shouldn't turn your back on this one. It is definitely a must-watch, even if it just be for the prologue with Moses.

7/10

It's interesting just to watch DeMille's first, silent film version of "The Ten Commandments", and the picture itself is pretty interesting too. It is also occasionally impressive, sometimes with the kind of DeMille flourishes that one expects, sometimes with a satisfying dramatic turn. It's quite different in its conception from the more familiar 1950's version, and so direct comparisons are not always possible, yet it holds up well by itself anyway.

Rather than concentrating on the biblical story, as in the remake, here DeMille first tells an abbreviated version of the Moses/Exodus narrative, and then uses it as the thematic basis for a modern morality tale. There are many parallels between the two stories, and while the parallels are occasionally forced, they often work surprisingly well. The modern-day story is similar to many other films of the 1910's and 1920's, but it is interesting and it is told well.

Although DeMille is known for his lavish spectacles, he also knew how to create some more subtle effects when he wanted to. In the modern story, some of the developments are a bit contrived, but the characters generally ring true, and the story itself is worthwhile as well. While the lavish remake with color and sound is probably going to remain more well-known, this earlier version is well worth seeing, too.

Director: Cecil B. Demille, Script: Jeaine Macpherson, Cast: Theodore Roberts (Moses), Charles de Rochfort (Rameses), Estelle Taylor (Miriam,sister of Moses), Julia Faye (wife of pharaoh), James Neill (Aaron), Edythe Chapman (Mrs. Martha Mc Tavish), Richard Dix (John,son), Rod La Rosque (Dan,son), Nita Naldi (Sally Lung,Eurasian)

Most people today have probably never seen this film. It is now available on the 50th anniversary set with the 1956 version. The 1956 version was an amazing movie but in many ways I prefer this one, Cecil B Demille's 1923 original. Many people will be surprised upon first viewing of this film. Demille uses a different approach thin in his 1956 remake. This film has two parts. The first part is set during the time of the exodus in the old testament. The Hebrew nation is enslaved by the Egyptians under the ruthless rule of the pharaoh Rameses. Moses as the chosen leader of the Jews frees his people from the Egyptians. God gives him the power to inflict plagues upon the Egyptians. He then leads his people on the great exodus across the desert to the Red Sea. God gives him the power to part the sea so the Jewish people can cross. Phaorah orders his army to go after the Jews across the parted Red Sea but God had the sea 'return to normal' so the army drowns.

Make no mistake, this film was a major production in its day and very high budget for its time. Demille uses very elaborate sets for this production. The exterior wall of the great Egyptian city is just like the one used in the 1956 version. Many extras were used in the making of this film. During the great exodus, there appears to be people for as far as the eye can see. You can see this great line of people spread out across the desert. Camels were seen during the exodus but as it turns out, camels were not in the middle east during that time period. The parting of the Red Sea in the 1956 version was considered an amazing special effect for its time. I was very curious as to how they would be able to pull this off in 1923! I was quite amazed!! The special effects used for the parting of the sea is just as good as the 56 perhaps better. One thing I really like about the special effects of this film is the wall of fire that Moses creates to keep the Egyptian army at bay. In the 56 version animation was used for the fire. In this version real fire was used using a double exposure technique that I thought was more impressive. Mr Demille was very loyal to his actors. He would use many of the same actors in a number of his films. The women who plays the part of pharaoh's wife and the boy that played his son are both involved in the 56 version as well as the film editor.

The film switches gears totally for the second half. We are now in modern times. It starts with a mother reading passages from the book of Exodus to her two sons. All the drama from the first half was simply her reading being acted out. The rest of the film is a morality tale between two sons. The mother and one son are deeply religious while the other son is a nonbeliever. He makes fun of his brother's silly beliefs so the mother kicks him out of the house for being a heathen. The believing son lives a modest life while the unbelieving son becomes very wealthy. He even gets the women they both like! He becomes a wealthy contractor employing his brother as a worker. However, the unbelieving brother's life will be filed with misfortune eventually leading to his death. The twist in the second half of the film makes for a interesting viewing experience. I like the contrast between ancient and modern times. Katherine Orrison in her commentary states that the modern sequence will probably seem more dated to the average viewer. I tend to agree. It is interesting to see how people lived and dressed during those times. The modern sequence is filmed mostly on location in San Francisco. It is cool to see how San Fran looked back then. The generation gap between the mother and her sons is very evident. This was the roaring 20's! Katherine Orrison gives an insightful commentary on both films but see seems to have a special fondness for this one. I can understand why.

Up till now I only knew Cecil B. DeMille from his guest appearance in "Sunset Boulevard" (1950, Billy Wilder). He played there a director of epic dramas and after watching "The ten commandments" (1923) I knew how wel casted he was. DeMille made two films about the ten commandments, one in 1923 and one in 1956. This made me think of Yasujiro Ozu who also filmed the same story (the story of floating weeds) two times in his career (once in 1934 and a second time in 1959).

"The ten commandments" tells the story of the Old Testament (Mozes). It is noteworthy that both films that DeMille made about the Old Testament were followed within a few years by an adaptation of "Ben Hur", a story in which the character of Jesus Christ and thus the New Testament plays en important part. I am talking about the films of 1925 (Fred Niblo) and 1959 (William Wyler).

"The ten commandments" (1923) tells two story's: one situated in the time of Mozes and one situated in the present day (that is 1923). In this respect the film resembles "Intolerance" (1916, D.W. Griffith). In the present day story there are also two brothers. John is the righteous one (Mozes) and Dan the opportunstic one (Aaron). Doing business in a deceptive way is the modern variation of dancing around the golden calf.

In general the Biblical story is seen as more spectacular than the modern day story. I am of a different opinion. Through modern eyes the Biblical story is very bombastic. The set pieces of ancient Egypt may be impressive, but that is not true for the way the splitting of the Red Sea is captured. For this effect gelantine was used, and you can see it. On the other hand the scene on the contruction site in the modern story, and the way that the director makes use of the effect of height is very good. I don't want to say that it is on par with the way in which Alfred Hitchcock used height in "Vertigo", but it is remarkable still the same.

In Hollywood a movie director is only as good as his latest film. And Cecil B. DeMille certainly had a whole string of great movies behind him. But now many in Tinseltown had begun to doubt his ability. The reason for this was of course the director's latest project. "Adam's Rib" was a comedy that did dismal business at the box office. So, DeMille realized that drastic measures had to be employed. And quickly!

The director decided to figure out what moviegoers really wanted to see. He promised a reward of $1,000 to whoever came up with the best concept for a new film. And soon the proposals poured in. Several people thought he should do "something about Moses and the Book of Exodus", which sounded like an exciting idea to DeMille. So, within weeks, the movie cameras were rolling at the Guadalupe sand dunes in northern Santa Barbara County. A place chosen for its similarity to Egypt in biblical times. "The Ten Commandments" were on its way.

But it wasn't an easy shoot. At Paramount Pictures' backyard, an army of 1,600 workers struggled to construct the massive sets needed for the movie. They built, among other things, four 35-foot-tall Pharaoh statues, 21 sphinxes and two gates reaching a height of 110 feet. Then the material had to be transported from down-town Los Angeles to the filming location. On the way, two of the statues were decapitated when the truck they were loaded onto drove under a low bridge. Once at the Guadalupe sand dunes, everything must be re-assembled and put in its right places by DeMille and his crew.

Appropriately, "The Ten Commandments" opened at Grauman's Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. That was in December 1923, and the film became a tremendous hit, both among the audience and with the critics of the day. Cecil B. DeMille followed up his success with two new biblical tales. "The King of Kings" in 1927 and "The Sign of the Cross" in 1932. But that, of course, is another story.

Cecil B. DeMille's Paramount EPIC "The Ten Commandments" tells the Old Testament's "Moses" story during its first hour. The "special effects" highlights are: Theodore Roberts (as Moses) parting the Red Sea, and the Biblical patriarch's thunderous receiving of God's commandments. The production is first rate throughout. After about fifty minutes of spectacle, the film switches to a "Modern Story" - wherein Mr. DeMille seeks to tell a morality story involving "The Ten Commandments".

For the main story (the more memorable Moses segments were a mere "prologue"), DeMille introduces the McTavish brothers - saintly carpenter Richard Dix (as John), and partying atheist Rod La Rocque (as Dan). While Mr. Dix stays home to read The Bible, with dear mother Edythe Chapman (as Martha McTavish), Mr. La Rocque breaks Commandments, with lovely Leatrice Joy (as Mary Leigh). Of course, Dix falls in love with Ms. Joy, after she becomes his brother's wife…

DeMille's morality tale is extremely heavy-handed, but nevertheless enticing, and expertly directed.

The "Biblical" and "Modern" story format recalls D.W. Griffith's superior "Intolerance" (1916). The all-star cast (it's 1923, remember) performs exceptionally, with La Rocque being seen in one of his finest performances. As any actor will tell you, La Rocque was halfway there, upon receiving the "bad brother" role, over Dix - and, La Rocque runs away with the film. His is a "Best Actor"-worthy performance. Nefarious Nita Naldi (as Sally Lung) leads a strong supporting cast.

All things considered, this one's a lot more fun than the 1956 re-make.

********* The Ten Commandments (11/23/23) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Rod La Rocque, Richard Dix, Leatrice Joy, Theodore Roberts

It's a silent two-part film, a Biblical story and a drama supporting the Biblical narrative. It is set during the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, and in the early 1920s, probably in California.

The Biblical spectacle, the first 50 minutes of the two-hour, fifteen-minute film, tells the story of Moses (Theodore Roberts). We see the suffering of the Israelites under Pharaoh Rameses (Charles De Roche). We also meet Moses' siblings, Miriam (Estelle Taylor) and Aaron (James Neill). Some of DeMille's visual effects in this early film come back very similarly in his 1956 epic of the same title.

The second part of "The Ten Commandments" is an unsubtle dramatic story about the consequences of ignoring the Ten Commandments. Martha McTavish (Edythe Chapman) is a devout conservative Christian woman with two adult sons living at home. Dan (Rod La Rocque) is slick, totally irreligious, and out to make money as quickly as possible as a building contractor. John (Richard Dix) pays more attention to their mother and aspires to be an honest carpenter. They both fall in love with Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy), a poor young woman who stumbles into their lives, but Dan's slickness wins the day.

The story jumps three years, and we see Dan's involvement with a crooked building inspector, Redding (Robert Edeson), and the catastrophic consequences of Dan's crooked dealing. It also portrays John's steadfastness.

The movie's Biblical part was most interesting as I could compare DeMille's approaches that were repeated in 1956. The story of Moses is truncated in this film, but Theodore Roberts, at age 60, was a more convincing Moses than Charlton Heston, at age 33 in 1956. The following dramatic story hits the viewer over the head with its message (the text of various commandments displays at appropriate times), and it's pretty obvious how things will turn out. That's partly the nature of silent films, where gestures are overly dramatic. Still, it was a fun watch of an early Biblical "epic."

Whenever anybody says THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, we think of the fun, uplifting 1956 epic made by DeMille and starring Charleton Heston, Yul Brynner, etc. etc. Not too many people know that film is a remake of DeMille's own 1923 film of the same name. The 1923 version has so much zip to it, mainly because in it's 90 minute plus time, DeMille has to tell TWO stories. The first is the story of Moses. He has to lead the exodus from Egypt, part the Red Sea (an awesome scene done in early two-tone Technicolor) and slap some sense in his followers who wrongly decide to worship the Golden Calf. All that in 45 minutes. That means it spools out really, really fast. The rest of the film takes place in modern day San Francisco, where two brothers, one a hard working carpenter, the other, a wealthy but scheming architect battle. We know their grey haired mom is a good Christian, because she constantly carries around a Bible as big as a cinderblock!

Beautifully restored, witha great piano and organ score. This is an energetic silent well worth catching.

The biblical story in fact comprises only about a third of the total running time of this first 'version' of the old DeMille warhorse, which culminates in a motorboat chase rather than the parting of the Red Sea.

It plays more like a critique of exploitative American capitalism than the thinly veiled Cold War attack on Godless Communism DeMille hinted that his 'remake' was during the fifties; with God demonstrating to venal athiest Rod La Rocque the hard way "that if you break the Ten Commandments - they will break you"!

This was another Biblical epic from the Silent era which I had long wanted to check out; even so, I had owned the DVD (accompanying the more popular 1956 version of the same events, from the same showman director no less, and which has received countless viewings from yours truly) for some time before I finally got to it. As with the later NOAH'S ARK (1928), virtually watched simultaneously, it seems that film-makers of the time were unsure of the appeal of such religious epics, so that they had to present them within the context of a modern story; still, De Mille's THE KING OF KINGS (a milestone in itself for being the first and, for a time, only picture to show Jesus' face) preceded that Michael Curtiz work by a year and it was set exclusively in the time of Christ. In this case, only the first 50 minutes or so are dedicated to the familiar tale involving Moses (needless to say, the dull Theodore Roberts is no match for the stoic Charlton Heston in the remake): the exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the writing of the tablets and the Golden Calf; these are clearly heavily streamlined in comparison with the almost 4-hour long 1956 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and, in spite of their obvious care, gargantuan scale and excellent special effects, can feel unsatisfying in that respect...especially when the parallel story is so hokey, unnecessarily inflated and, at the end of the day, somewhat ordinary! The latter sees a Bible-thumping matriarch (which she proudly holds even when posing for a portrait), her two sons and the girl who comes between them: one of the boys (played by Richard Dix) is righteous – and, as his mother claims, engaged in a skill (carpentry) which has produced some notable exponents (alluding naturally to Christ himself) – while the other mocks religion and vows to become somebody by his own merits. Eventually, we find him as a top contractor and, perhaps to make amends, takes it upon himself to build a church; however, to cut costs, he reduces the amount of cement required to make the concrete, with the result that the walls are weak and liable to collapse at any time (coincidentally, the very previous day I watched a film in which a character had faced a similar dilemma – GIVE US THIS DAY aka Christ IN CONCRETE [1949]): this ruse is discovered by Dix, appointed "boss-carpenter" on the project, and he confronts his brother…but, before anything can be done about it, the whole edifice falls on top of the mother who picks just that moment to visit the premises! The morally-corrupt sibling even forsakes his wife (the destitute girl they had taken in and whom Dix relinquished on his account) for an Asian temptress, whom he eventually kills (the only commandment, according to his spouse, not yet broken by him); in the end, the boy gets his come-uppance and Dix can reclaim his lady. While the two sections may seem to jell better than those in NOAH'S ARK, the overall achievement is a lesser one – and not just to it, but THE KING OF KINGS (by the way, Christ makes a 'cameo' appearance here towards the end!) and, most importantly, the later version…if still quite worthwhile in itself.

DeMille's silent version of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is really two films in one - specifically, a 90-minute feature introduced by a 45-minute prologue. The prologue is the familiar story of Moses (Theodore Roberts) and the Exodus from Egypt which plays like a rough sketch of the 1956 remake. As is typical of the silent DeMille oeuvre, a moral lesson is presented by juxtaposing two stories with parallel themes from widely different eras. The lessons here seem to be: ignore the Ten Commandments at your peril and love God. Just as the ancient Israelites suffered for their sins, the protagonist of the modern story (Rod LaRocque as a contractor who becomes wealthy by deceitful business practices) pays dearly for breaking one Commandment after another, and if ever there was an actor born to break them it was the sleek, devilishly handsome LaRocque. In this plot, he is pitted against his opposite: his own brother, the rough-hewn Richard Dix as an honest carpenter who plays by the rules and stays poor. The self-sacrificing Dix is so good-hearted that he gives up the woman he loves (Leatrice Joy) because he knows she loves LeRocque. Nita Naldi appears briefly and unforgettably as a leprous Eurasian vamp who plays a pivotal role in LaRocque's downfall.

The prologue's special effects look crude by modern CGI standards but God's utterance of the Commandments in the form of shimmering titles against a whirl of sparks has a stylish beauty all its own, and the choreography of the Golden Calf worship looks as if it might have inspired Fritz Lang's crowd scenes in METROPOLIS a few years later. Charles DeRoche (whatever happened to HIM?) is impressive as Pharaoh Rameses.

The feature benefits from excellent production values, generally fast pacing and stunning cinematography; the organ accompaniment is even above par, with imaginative use of the instrument. One problem: when characters come indoors after having been drenched to the bone in driving rainstorms their clothing appears to dry off way too quickly. And when Leatrice Joy steals a "hot dog" (which looks more like a hamburger) from a diner, and runs for blocks with it in the drenching rain, it seems to stay intact. It is also hard to believe that a woman could emerge, dressed in a full street suit, including hat and veil, from a trans- Pacific journey inside a sack of jute! But hey – this is the world of silent cinema.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (Paramount, 1923), a super special production directed by Cecil B. DeMille, is the director's attempt in religious spectacle. Although DeMille already directed a story on Joan of Arc in JOAN THE WOMAN (1917), this is his attempt on doing something a little bit different from his previous efforts. As with the earlier silent classic of D. W. Griffith's INTOLERANCE (1916), consisting of four separate stories in no particular order, this edition to THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, unlike DeMille's most famous super four-hour 1956 edition starring Charlton Heston, this earlier 136 minute production combines Old Testament story according to Exodus followed by another story set in modern times. The Biblical portion, clocked at 50 minutes, as opposed to the modern-day story taking up much of the proceedings at 85 minutes, could have been a separate movie at best. With two movies for the price of one, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS simply shows God's Law being as relevant today as it was centuries ago.

Opening Title: "Our modern world defined God as a "religious complex" and laughed at The Ten Commandments as OLD-FASHIONED. Then through the laughter came the shattering thunder of the World War. And now a blood drenched, bitter world - no longer laughing - cries for a way out. There is but one way out. It existed before it was engraved upon tablets of stone. It will exist when stone has crumbled. The Ten Commandments are not rules to obey as a personal favor to God. They are the fundamental principles without which mankind cannot live together. They are not laws they are the LAW."

Prologue: Egypt, centuries ago, where slaves are seen pulling the wheels carrying a gigantic statue, with those getting whipped as they tire of such strenuous work. Ramesus, the Magnificent (Charles DeRoche) rules with no compassion while his sister, Miriam (Estelle Taylor) offers water to the abused slaves. Moses, the Lawgiver (Theodore Roberts), through the guidance of God's voice, leads His Children of Israel from bondage to the Promised Land. As Moses goes to Mount Sinai to speak to God in prayer, God answers him by posting on two tablets through volts of lightning his law he labels The Ten Commandments. In the meantime, his people are forsaking their God in favor of worshipping the Golden Calf.

Modern Story: Widow Martha McTavish (Edythe Chapman) is an overly religious woman with two grown sons, John (Richard Dix), a carpenter, and Dan (Rod LaRocque), an atheist who fails to see his mother's logic in her beliefs. While eating at Dugan's Lunch Wagon, Dan encounters Mary Leigh (Leatrice Joy), a homeless young girl accompanied by her dog, out in the rain, stealing his food. Rather than having her arrested, Dan invites her to her home for dinner with the company of his suspicious mother and brother. Through the passage of time, John has fallen in love with Mary, but loses her to Dan. Dan doesn't prove himself a good husband as he practically breaks the Ten Commandments by having a mistress in Sally Lung (Nita Naldi) from Molokai Leper Island, and being the one responsible for one of his crooked deals by using bad concrete on a Cathedral he is constructing, and much more.

For anyone expecting a near scene-by-scene original edition to DeMille's 1956 remake would be totally disappointed. The Biblical portion of the story shows great promise with lavish scale and costumes which makes one wish the entire story remained that way for about or under two hours. Theodore Roberts plays the white-bearded Moses to perfection, possibly his most famous movie role of his entire career. Special effects including the parting of the Red Sea is top notch, as is the visual style of the Ten Commandments flashing across the screen in full force. Though THE TEN COMMANDMENTS did prove successful in its standard form, the sudden change to modern theme seems out of place. For The Ten Commandments, it's the same then as it is today, which is what DeMille proposes to his movie audience of 1923.

Those witnessing Edythe Chapman's performance as an overly religious and domineering mother could possibly relate to her character who has been raised in similar circumstance, with her forceful meaning turning away children from God rather than becoming closer. Rod LaRocque, who resembles that of actor Rudolph Valentino, convincingly plays the one who gets turned off by religion. Richard Dix, early in his career before his success in talkies and beyond, and he being the best known actor in the entire cast, should gather the most attention from movie buffs. And that's Agnes Ayres in a cameo playing an outcast for the modern story.

Formerly presented on cable television's American Movie Classics (1993-1998), and later Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: September 29, 2023); THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, also available on video cassette and DVD accompanied by excellent organ score by Gaylord Carter, with DVD featuring added bonus of a commentary spoken by author, Katherine Orrison, whose historical accounts regarding this movie is most informative for those unfamiliar with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS according to DeMille. (***)

When I reviewed "The Ten Commandments" (1956), I received a lot of 'Not Helpful' ratings. I assume this is because, unlike the average review, I did NOT particularly like the film and said so. Once again, I buck the crowd as I definitely did NOT like this previous version as well. In the case of both films, I seriously wonder whether or not the movies actually were a boon to atheists because the films were so incredibly bad--even with the incredible Egyptian sets.

Unlike the more famous 1956 version, only the first 56 minutes of the film are about the Jews and the creation of the Commandments. The biggest differences you'll notice is that Moses is a very superficial character--and has very little to do in most of the film. In addition, the Children of Israel actually leave Egypt about 20-25 minutes into the film--and it's a 136 minute film. The rest of the film is actually set in the present day (1923) and is a very, very heavy-handed morality tale with absolutely no hint of subtlety--none. It comes on so strong and heavy-handed that I am sure many will laugh at its histrionics and silly plot.

So what is to like about this film. Well, first and foremost, the DVD copy is perhaps the most pristine I have ever seen in a silent film--it's very, very crisp and clean. And, the Egyptian sets (as I mentioned above) are very nice. Apart from that, the rest is just pretty silly. The famed parting of the red sea looked like melty jello. And, imagine my surprise when I later read on IMDb that's really all it was!!! And, as for the story it was bad in two serious ways. First, the creation of the Commandments section was just too superficial and dispassionate--like the folks are acting out some half-baked passion play--where they really aren't too concerned with quality--just getting the stupid thing done! Second, the modern portion is much worse with it's message that comes across with all the subtlety of a 2x4 upside your skull!! As a result, unless you are a die-hard silent film fan or an atheist who hates God, don't bother with this silly film. Why Cecil B. DeMille has somehow been considered a genius for his (anti-) religious epics, I have no idea!

By the way a few final thoughts. First, despite both of DeMille's films saying to the contrary, archaeological evidence AND written accounts of the day indicate the Jews did NOT build the pyramids but professional builders. Second, why did the Godly mother die in the film?! Didn't this seem to reinforce the notion that God is not real?! Talk about an illogically constructed religious message!! Though, now that I think about it, illogic was DeMille's forte--with nudity and bestiality in his other 'religious' epic "Sign of the Cross"!! And, though it was NOT a DeMille film, think about the original "Ben Hur"--as in the end, Jesus STAYED DEAD!!! What a whacked out message! All very Pre-Code in their sensibilities and all CLAIMING to be family religious entertainment!

Essentially two separate stories, this shows well the aspirational brilliance of Cecil B. De Mille as well as his complete inability to condense anything! The first part depicts the Exodus and Leviticus books from the Old Testament - the story of Moses leading the slaves from their somewhat brutal existence in Egypt and the passing down of the Ten Commandments to the people as they build the great Tabernacle. The second part modernises the application of the Commandments and applies them to a family in 1920's America with two brothers who vie for the affections of the same girl whilst one seeks fame and fortune, the other a more contented existence. Both stories exhort the import of the Commandments as the basic tenets of human decency and values - and shy not from visiting severe punishments on those who transgress. The former story includes a wonderful score and, for the time, some pretty impressive special effects - especially the parting of the Red Sea. The second story is less impressive - more a slightly over-moralistic tale of greed and avarice that was hardly unusual then (or is now). The budget - some $1.8m was enormous for the time and the scale of the cinematography, extras etc. In phase one is impressive and convincing; the acting comes into it's own a bit more in the second act - with Richard Dix and Rod La Rocque playing the brothers well, and Nita Naldi shining as the Eurasian temptress "Sally Lung". As with so many silent films, it's all in their faces - and this one doesn't disappoint - even if there is a little too much theatrical gesturing and posturing now and again. On balance I probably prefer the 1956 iteration, again by De Mille, but there is little in it and if you do get a spare 2¼ hours then this is certainly a superb example of grand cinema from a visionary director.